Short Summary
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for Director rehearing and review, Samsung Electronics challenges the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its inter‑partes review petitions covering U.S. Patent No. 8,886,181. Samsung contends that the USPTO’s abrupt rescission of the Vidal Memo—guidance that had assured petitioners that a timely Sotera stipulation would shield them from discretionary denial—was applied retroactively, violating the Fifth Amendment’s due‑process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The petition further argues that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, contrary to both the former Vidal Memo and the newer Boalick Memo, and therefore erred in denying institution. Samsung requests that the Director overturn the denial, reinstate the petitions, and refer them to a merits panel.
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 Vasu Holdings, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd.vs--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Hisense USA CorporationvsPhenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01209 after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging five claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 9,744,448). The petitioner alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues no discretionary denial applies.
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.