Short Summary
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482, arguing the agency’s retroactive policy change violates due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Detailed Summary
In Petition for Director Review, Samsung Electronics contests the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482 covering patent 11,405,429. Samsung contends that the Acting Director’s retroactive rescission of the 2022 Vidal Memo— which had limited discretionary denial based on parallel litigation— violates the Fifth Amendment due process rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. The petition further asserts that the rescission breaches the change‑in‑position doctrine, unlawfully rewrites statutory deadlines and estoppel provisions, and is unconstitutionally vague. Samsung also argues that the rescission should have been subject to notice‑and‑comment rulemaking. The petitioner seeks reversal of the denial and a merits review of the IPR.
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 HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al.vsMultimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to KPN’s RE48,089 patent was successful, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Olofsson and Kuruvilla. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim construction for “coverage assessment” and rejected the patent owner’s arguments about distinct elements and operational networks.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
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.