Short Summary
Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.
Detailed Summary
In a petitioner's response to a Director Review request, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) by refusing to deny institution of IPR2024-01187 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,257,492. The brief contends that the rescinded Fintiv guidance memo should not retroactively affect the institution decision, especially since the patent owner abandoned its Fintiv arguments. Samsung highlights a Sotera stipulation, previously deemed dispositive, and cites consistent PTAB rulings in related IPRs to support its position that the institution should stand.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. vs Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al.vsJanssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 4 of Qomplx’s 2022 cloud‑telemetry patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art references describing virtual appliances and cloud agents. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
Google LLCvsProxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
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.