Short Summary
Samsung and ASUS settled four inter partes review proceedings before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Detailed Summary
In January 2025, Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered into settlement and license agreements covering four of Samsung's inter partes review petitions (IPR2024-01036, IPR2024-01217, IPR2024-01246, IPR2024-01273). Both parties filed joint motions to terminate the proceedings and requested that the settlement documents be treated as business‑confidential information under the statutory confidentiality provisions. Finding good cause, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the motions, terminated the IPRs before institution, and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept separate from the patent files and disclosed only under confidentiality rules.
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 ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsCerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor’s TPMS patent, arguing that 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition to invalidate Wiz’s ’549 patent covering AI‑driven cybersecurity incident response. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art combining a 2022 cybersecurity system (Peters) with a 2024 LLM‑focused disclosure (Lal). The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over early‑2000s container technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
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.