Short Summary
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB institution denial that relied on a rescinded Vidal memo. The petitioner contends lack of notice of retroactive effect and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors, seeking to submit a Sotera stipulation.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑01368, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliate challenge the PTAB's discretionary denial of institution for U.S. Patent No. 9,961,552 owned by Secure Wi‑Fi LLC. The denial was issued under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) after the USPTO rescinded the Vidal memo, but the Board failed to give Samsung notice that the rescission applied retroactively, violating due process. Samsung also argues that the Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors 2, 4, and 6 was arbitrary and unsupported by precedent. The petitioner requests Director Review and permission to file a Sotera stipulation to mitigate the retroactive harm.
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 Secure Wi-Fi LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
QIAGEN Sciences, LLCvsTecan Group AG
PTAB issued Director Review requests for IPR2025-00028 and IPR2025-00029, limiting responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. QIAGEN and Tecan must file brief replies within five business days.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in its IPR against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that the petitioner adequately showed Murakami discloses key features and that combinations with Beard and Akiike were motivated and predictable.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical's 11,969,333 B2 patent covering intravascular clot removal. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Laub, Garrison, and related references, and instituted review on all 36 challenged claims.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al.vsCole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 documents the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs, and Cole Haan, concluding IPR2025-01394.
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.