Short Summary
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies reached a settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-01049 before trial. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01049 concerning U.S. Patent 11,334,918 B2, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a joint motion with Secure Communication Technologies, LLC to terminate the inter partes review based on a settlement agreement. The PTAB, noting that no institution decision had been made, granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as business‑confidential information under the applicable statutes and regulations. The proceeding was thus terminated prior to any trial or claim institution.
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 Secure Communication Technologies, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110 B2, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Advanced Integrated Circuit Process's 7,579,227 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric structures, arguing obviousness and anticipation based on multiple prior publications.
Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsTire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC requests Director Review to vacate the PTAB's institution of an IPR filed by Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner gave conflicting claim constructions in the Board and district court. The request cites recent Director decisions requiring explanation of such inconsistencies.
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.