Short Summary
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2023-00334 concerning U.S. Patent 9,412,913, Samsung Electronics and Sinotechnix LLC reached a settlement and jointly filed motions to terminate the proceeding. The Administrative Patent Judges—Kevin W. Cherry, Sheila F. McShane, and Mary C. Hoffman— granted the motions, noting that the trial had not been instituted and no merits had been decided. The settlement agreement was ordered to be treated as business confidential information under the applicable statutes. The proceeding was thus terminated without any claim institution or unpatentability findings.
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 Sinotechnix LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
Wise PLC et al.vs--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.
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.