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
Digital Global Systems, Inc.vsDeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Red Hat, Inc.vsCompetitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
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.