Short Summary
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations of the APA and due‑process rights, and argues the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00640, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. seek Director rehearing of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of iCashe, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,483,722 covering NFC mobile‑payment technology. The petition contends that the USPTO’s rescission of the Vidal Memo and the issuance of the Boalick and Stewart memoranda were substantive rule changes made without required notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and Samsung’s due‑process rights. It further argues that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely‑filed Sotera stipulation, which should have precluded a discretionary denial based on parallel district‑court litigation, and that the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” is factually unsupported, constituting an abuse of discretion. Samsung requests that the Decision be withdrawn and the matter be referred to a panel for reconsideration.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. vs iCashe, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s attempt to overturn a PTAB institution of a lithium‑battery patent, arguing the parallel‑petition issue is moot and the Board’s decision was proper and efficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
Court decision.
Excelliance Mos CorporationvsForce MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corporation has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 7,629,634 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Hshieh and Uno prior‑art references.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.