Executive 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.
Related Cases
Genius SportsvsSportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 16-30 of the patent are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Ellis and Spivey, teach or suggest all limitations of several challenged claims related to live event streaming and data synchronization.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light have settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,343,114.
Motorola Solutions, Inc.vsSTA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related IPRs.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al.vsSerendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Serendia's '536 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board determined that prior art (Mehta) discloses the claimed depth control feature despite arguments for fixed-length needles.
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.