The Buzz, An Economic Development Podcast | Episode 86: Thomas Komaromi
Episode 117 -- FCPA Update: Samsung FCPA Settlement; Braskem Former CEO Indicted; Transport CEO Convicted after Trial
Harvard University has sued Samsung, alleging that the latter’s chip technology infringes two patents owned by the university. The case is President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Samsung Electronics Co, U.S. District...more
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that will highlight developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed...more
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...more
On May 10, 2023, a PTAB Panel excused the late filings of the Patent Owner and allowed over thirty exhibits and a Corrected Patent Owner Response (“CPOR”) to be submitted into the record in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v....more
The PTAB recently issued back-to-back Fintiv denials. The first denial issued on May 4, 2023. Read here about Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. California Institute of Tech., No. IPR2023-00130, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 4,...more
In March, Samsung agreed to pay UK Nanotechnology Company Nanoco USD 150 million in a patent infringement dispute over patents used in QLED televisions that featured legal team from Wei Chixue Law Firm of Linda Liu Group - a...more
This post reviews three recent Texas district court opinions regarding venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq....more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments related to patent litigation in federal district courts of Texas for the month of October 2021....more
Under the Board’s rules, a patent owner gets to have the last word in a PTAB proceeding by filing a sur-reply to the petitioner’s reply. Sur-replies may only respond to arguments raised in the reply, and the “sur-reply … may...more
KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Newman, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The forum selection clause in the parties'...more
IN RE: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. [OPINION] (2021-139, 2021-140, 6/30/2021) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna) - Dyk, J. Granting the writs of...more
IN RE: SAMSUNG ELECS., CO., LTD. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: Manipulation of venue through...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) - Our case of the week concerns issues particular to inter partes review...more
Judge Gilliam of the Northern District of California recently answered this question and provided helpful guidance on the interplay of IPRs, reexaminations and district court litigation. In IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al., v....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has rejected a patent owner’s argument that a forum selection clause found in a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) barred the Board from instituting a petition for inter partes review (IPR). ...more
Patent Claims for Digital Camera Are Not Patent Eligible - In two related actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought by Yanbin Yu and Zhongxuan Zhang (patentee), Apple Inc. and...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
On July 2, 2019, Judge Cote of the Southern District of New York issued an opinion that denied a motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the defendant to withdraw its petitions for inter parties review (“IPR”) at the...more
Addressing whether an entity should be named as a real-party-in-interest (RPI), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that Google did not need to be listed as an RPI in two separate sets of inter partes review...more
Hogan Lovells’ Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Update reports on recent news and case decisions from jurisdictions including China, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. ...more