Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v. Secure Wi-Fi LLC

IPR2024-01368

Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB institution denial that relied on a rescinded Vidal memo.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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01368
Filing Date
9 April 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00513

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156) before the PTAB, asserting that claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and anticipated under § 102. The petitioner argues that prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola disclose all elements of the challenged claims regarding adaptive rate switching.

patentIPR2024-00695

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsVIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.

Cisco Systems and Video Solutions settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,649,426, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

patentIPR2024-01364

Apple Inc.vsVaria Holdings LLC

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Varia Holdings’ ’984 patent covering emulated RFID functionality in mobile devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution to invalidate the patent.

patentIPR2025-00482

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patentIPR2025-00573

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLCvsPayRange LLC.

Alliance Laundry Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 7 and 11 of PayRange’s ’772 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art patents and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call