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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent resulted in all challenged claims being held unpatentable. The Board found the claims obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.
ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS moves to withdraw its IPR petition after a settlement in related Roku proceedings renders the challenge moot.
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.