All Things Patent Blog


Leave a comment

Arista Wins Copyright and Patent Battle with Cisco

arista-wins-copyright-and-patent-battle-with-cisco

Recently, Arista Networks won a major ruling in the long-running patent and copyright clash with Cisco. A jury in San Jose, California federal court found that Arista owed no damages over Cisco’s claims of patent infringement. Additionally, the jurors also found that Arista did not infringe Cisco’s patent as well.

Initially, in 2014 Cisco sued Arista for infringing its copyright and patent which included Cisco Internetwork Operating System (IOS) 11.0, Cisco IOS 11.1 and Cisco IOS 11.2. Further, Cisco named one patent in the suit, US number 7,047,526, titled “Generic command interface for multiple executable routines”.

Cisco was roughly seeking $335 million for all the statutory damages and a trial by jury.

Cisco said that “rather than invest in the expensive and time-consuming effort that would have been necessary to develop its own features for Arista’s products, and specifically instead of investing the time and expense of developing its own CLI, Arista decided to simply copy Cisco’s unique approach and pioneering proprietary technologies”.

The command line interface (CLI) was the main part of the software in question and Cisco argued that Arista had illegally copied it. However, Arista claimed that the CLI is used by many rival companies and that Cisco’s attack was due to personal enmity.

On December 14th the jury absolved Arista of infringing any of Cisco’s copyrighted technical manuals. They also said that Arista did not induce infringement of two claims of the ‘526 patent. It also said that Arista was protected by “scenes a fair” doctrine, a legal principle in the copyright law that states, if there is no other way to make a product, the value of it cannot be credited to the creator of work. Arista stated, “the outcome represents an important victory not only for Arista but for the entire industry.”

 “Our goal has always been to protect technological innovation, and stop Arista from using our copyrighted and patented technology. We will look to Judge Freeman to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion reached by the jury, as well as other grounds for setting aside the trial result.” said Mark Chandler SVP, General Counsel and Secretary of Cisco.  

Case details

Type Names
Case Number 5:14-cv-05344
Court California Northern District Court
Filed date 12-05-2014
Judge Beth Labson Freeman
Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc.
Plaintiff Attorney John M. Desmarais
Plaintiff Law Firm Desmarais LLP
Defendant Arista Networks INC.
Defendant Attorney Ajay Krishnan
Defendant Law Firm Keker & Van Nest LLP
Product Arista 7010 7048 7050 7050X 7100 7150 7200 7250X and others (Networking products)
Patent US7047526|US7953886
Basis of Termination Judgment on the merits
Outcome of District court judgment Defendant

For more details on this case, click here.


Leave a comment

Tech Giants Including Samsung Sued by KAIST Over Infringement of FinFET Technology

kaist_finfet

Samsung Electronics, Qualcomm and Global Foundries are being sued in the Federal Court of Texas by the US-based Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) for usage of their FinFet technologies without any permit.

Qualcomm had recently announced that its Snapdragon 835 processor will be produced using Samsung’s advanced 10nm FinFET technology. Both the companies made an announcement by conducting an event and giving out press releases.

The incident happened when Samsung invited FinFet developer and one of the partners of KAIST, Lee Jong-ho, to show Samsung engineers how the FinFET process works.

KAIST IP said, “Samsung Electronics could save time and costs to develop the technologies by duplicating Lee’s invention without paying royalties. It continued to expropriate Lee’s achievements without consideration of his rights or proper compensation.

Samsung is known to use the FinFet technology on most of its phone models including the Galaxy series. “We proposed a contract when we developed FinFet but Samsung did not accept it. Though it started to make mobile phones using FinFet it resisted paying patent fees,” said KAIST IP. Due to this lawsuit, there might also be a delay in the launch of Samsung’s Galaxy S8 phone.

Additionally, in 2014 Global Foundries also collaborated with Samsung to manufacture semiconductor chips based on FinFET. Thus, KAIST has also named Global Foundries in the lawsuit for infringing its technology.

The FinFET technology is already lawfully used by many companies including Intel Corporation. In 2011 Intel applied the FinFet technology to its products and in 2012 acknowledged its use of the  technology  and signed an official license contract with KAIST.

Based on data analyses from MaxVal’s Litigation Databank, we see that the judgements awarded in past by the Judge Rodney Gilstrap favours both the plaintiff and the defendants, depending upon the nature of suit and allegations.

Facts about EDTX Judge Rodney Gilstrap since 2010:

No. of cases handled 4,703
No. of cases given judgment based on merits 31
No. of cases in which plaintiffs won 15
No. of cases in which defendants won 16

Case details:

Type

Names

Case Number 2:16-cv-01314
Court Texas Eastern District Court
Filed date 11/29/2016
Judge/Magistrate Judge Rodney Gilstrap/Roy S. Payne
Plaintiff KAIST IP US LLC
Plaintiff Attorney Elizabeth L DeRieux
Plaintiff Law Firm Capshaw DeRieux LLP
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.| Samsung Electronics America, Inc.| Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.| Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC| GlobalFoundries, Inc.| GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc.| Qualcomm Inc.
Product Samsung FinFET Technology, Chips, and Products; GloFo Chips; and Qualcomm Chips – Processor chips (Semiconductor devices, processor chips incorporating such semiconductor devices, and/or consumer products incorporating such processor chips, 14 nm bulk FinFET technologies, Exynos series of chips, e.g., Exynos 7 Octa 7420, Exynos 7 Quad 7570, Exynos 7 Octa 7870, Exynos 8 Octa 8890, and Exynos 8895, and Defendant Qualcomm’s Snapdragon series of chips, e.g., 820 and 821 chips, Galaxy line of mobile devices, e.g., Galaxy S6, Galaxy S6 Edge, Galaxy S6 Active, Galaxy S6 Edge+, Galaxy Note 5, Galaxy Tab A 10.1, Galaxy J7, Galaxy S7, and Galaxy S7 Edge)
Patent US6885055

For more details on this case, click here.


Leave a comment

Patent: Use of Common Sense in an Obviousness Analysis

patent-use-of-common-senseThe Federal Circuit decided Arendi S.A.R.L vs Apple Inc. in August of this year.  The Court ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board misapplied the law on permissible use of common sense in an analysis. While reversing the PTAB’s final decision, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s application of common sense to supply a limitation missing from a prior art reference was conclusory and unsupported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit explained the proper use of common sense in an obviousness finding and helpful guidance for practitioners.

Being sued by Arendi in district court for infringement of US Patent 7917843, the defending parties Apple, Google, and Motorola Mobility filed a petition for inter partes review of the declared claims. The district court proceedings were then stayed pending completion of the inter partes review proceeding.

The claims of the ’843 patent are generally directed to techniques for locating information in a displayed document. Petitioners maintained that a single prior art reference “Pandit” rendered the claims obvious. Pandit discloses methods for recognizing predetermined types of text in a body of text and performing operations pertinent to the recognized text.  Petitioners cited the recognition of telephone numbers as text and the operation performed as adding the recognized telephone number to an address book, in the specific embodiment of Pandit. The PTAB, agreed with Petitioners that, as a matter of common sense, the technique disclosed in Pandit can be presumed to perform a search of the address book using the identified telephone number in order to avoid duplicate telephone number entries.

The Appellees argued that the process of searching for data in a database was well known at the time of the invention. But, they were unable to provide a reason as to why it would be proper to extrapolate from this general knowledge to specifically add a telephone number search to the Pandit reference.

In sum, the Appellees’ conclusory statements and unspecific expert testimony were insufficient to invoke common sense to supply this key limitation.

The Federal Circuit’s opinion provided guidance regarding the application of common sense in an obviousness analysis for patent prosecution lawyers and patent litigators.

On the patent prosecution front, an applicant confronting an obviousness rejection based in part on common sense can use this case as leverage and press the patent examiner to explain, specifically, and with evidentiary support and the reason of  limitation absent from the prior art. For patent litigators, the decision is a helpful guide for parties on both sides of an invalidity case.

Criticality of claims in an infringement case

Preparing the claims comparison chart is a primary step in studying a patent infringement case. MaxVal’s Claims Set Comparison tool and Claim Chart Generator help in analyzing and especially illustrating the elements of the claims.  Claim charts are automatically generated in a ready-to-use format.

Patent and litigation attorneys have relied on MaxVal’s Claim Set Comparison and Claim Chart Generator tools for several years.

Key features of the Claim Chart tools:

  • Automatically creates a downloadable claim chart for a U.S. patent or published U.S. application.
  • View the Independent claims separately for a better view
  • Compares two sets of claims and highlights the difference between them
  • Helps figuring out the difference between the U.S. claims and the foreign counterpart claims
  • The claim charts (including PCT and EP patent/publications) can be generated in three different formats: Word, Excel or HTML.

The illustration below shows a comparison of claims sets and patent drawings for the patent #791843

Claims Set Comparison - Patent US7917843.PNG

Fig-1: Snapshot shows comparison of the claims at publication and granted stages for patent #791843

Patent drawings-843.PNG

Fig-2: Patent drawings of ‘843

Create your Max-Insight account today to start your free trial and access a bundle of patent tools trusted by hundreds of patent professionals.


Leave a comment

Network-1 Announces Settlement of Patent Litigation With Polycom, Inc.

network-1-announces-settlement-of-patent-litigation-with-polycom-inc

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. agreed to resolve its patent litigation case against Polycom, Inc, pending in the United States District Court of EDTX, for infringement of Network-1’s Remote Power Patent (U.S. Patent No. 6218930, the ‘930 patent). Polycom was one amongst the sixteen defendants named in the litigation.

A mutual settlement was reached by both the companies to resolve this litigation. Under the settlement terms, Polycom agreed to license the ‘930 patent until March 2020 and pay a fee of $5 million for past sales on its Power over Ethernet (POE) products. Additionally, it will continue to pay royalties on the products until the patent term expires. The royalty payments also include POE products that comply with the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) standards.

In September 2011, Network-1, filed a patent litigation against sixteen data networking equipment producers for violating its ‘930 patent. Previously Network-1 reached a settlement agreement with 11 defendants. The remaining four defendants in the lawsuit were Avaya Inc., AXIS Communications Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Juniper Networks, Inc. Network-1 had decided to claim reasonable monetary damages including royalties from them.

At present, Network-1 has twenty-five license agreements in regard to the ‘930 patent which also includes added license agreements with Cisco Systems, Inc., Extreme Networks, Inc., Netgear Inc. and many other data networking sellers.


Leave a comment

Yahoo Patents Smart Billboard for Ad Targeting

yahoo-patents-smart-billboard-for-ad-targeting

Yahoo has filed a patent for a camera equipped “smart” billboard that has a wide array of sensors and drone-based cameras to collect information about people for ad targeting.

According to the details in the application no 14/675,004 published on Oct 6th, 2016, the billboards or drones placed in public will have audio and video collection capabilities, speech recognition, and retina scan to determine what viewers are looking at or conversing about. The aim is to make billboards smart and show people ads that are most relevant.

The sensors in the camera would detect if people are paying attention, retina scan to check if people are looking directly at the ad, use proximity and image recognition to see if pedestrians are slowing down while passing by the ad, and microphone inputs would be used to check for ad-related keywords being spoken.

The patent application states, “instead of relying on “personalization” like online advertising, the techniques described herein rely on “groupization,” i.e., selection of advertising content based on an aggregate representation of the target audience that is derived, at least in part, from real-time information.”

The patent application was submitted March 2015 and was recently made public by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Ever since the birth of online advertising, companies have been monitoring clicks on ads and collecting data. But, directly observing people when they are on the go was out of the question. That’s all about to change as Yahoo has filed this patent which tracks and monitors an entirely different kind of traffic.

Even though the proposed billboard is indeed smart, the conception raises two major concerns

  • Yahoo collects information on people and uses it to show relevant ads. Good, but where does the data go? Does Yahoo delete it or do companies who have placed a bid on the billboard content get access to that information?
  • People are not given an option to opt-out and disable the ads as it’s impossible to block a billboard

The application is still pending with the USPTO and if it’s approved let’s hope that Yahoo protects the privacy of the user’s data.

Here’s a diagram from the patent document which explains the concept

yahoo-patent-image_uspto

If you want to be updated with the latest trends and innovations in the patent space, or want to track your competitors’ moves, please subscribe to our Max Alerts.


Leave a comment

FameBit acquired by Google

famebit-acquired-by-google

Google recently announced its acquisition of FameBit, a marketplace that connects brands, influencers, and creators with YouTube and other social networking sites to sponsor their content.

This is indeed a huge step for Google as this combination would increase the availability of branded content opportunities and bring more revenue to YouTube.

However, YouTube said that the FameBit acquisition does not mean that it will be preferred over other digital marketing agencies and services.

YouTube’s Ariel Bardin (VP, Product Management – Google Payment) said “Creators will always have the choice in how they work with brands, and there are many great companies who provide this service today. This acquisition doesn’t change that. Our hope is that FameBit’s democratized marketplace will allow creators of all sizes to directly connect with brands, as well as provide a great technology solution for companies like MCNs and agencies to find matches for their creators and brand partners.”

Financial terms of the deal have not been disclosed yet so FameBit will remain as a separate operation for now.

In a blog, FameBit founders David Kierzkowski and Agnes Kozera said, “With Google’s relationship with brands large and small, and YouTube’s partnership with creators around the globe, we hope to connect even more brands to creators, engage more audiences, and make brand marketing more creative and authentic than ever.”

FameBit has worked with world renowned brands including Marvel Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony, L’Oreal, Canon, Activision Blizzard, Adidas, Rovio, and Conair. The company has made deals with advertisers and creators that have resulted in more than 25,000 branded videos that have generated over 2 billion minutes of viewing time.

The trend set in video advertising has been apparent for some time now. Advertisements are fine but, they give better results when integrated into a proper video and delivered by a creator whom fans look up to. The acquisition of FameBit is clear that this is one more step in strengthening Google’s offerings and to more strongly link advertisement on their platforms to revenue.


1 Comment

USPTO Patent Issuance Report – First Half-Year of 2016

uspto-patent-issuance-report-first-half-year-of-2016

Technology growth is becoming increasingly complex and the long tail of inventions is growing day by day. Any business that comes with an innovative creation has to protect it through some legally enforceable rights, and this is where patents come into action by protecting your ideas through an extensive system that has been developed around them.

We have already crossed the halfway point of the financial year and the number of patents issued shows a steady growth.

So, do you know what’s happening in the world of patents? MaxVal has recapped all the latest US patent trends from the first half of 2016.

The total number of patents issued by the USPTO between Jan’16 to June ‘16 is 168,077

  • US is ranked highest with a massive number of 109,353 patents received so far followed by Japan 24,200, Slovakia 10,047, Germany 5,279, China 4,830, Taiwan 2,707, and France 2,202.
  • Filing for a patent with the US Government is indeed a crucial step. But, it involves a wide swath of legal formalities. The top law firms that have represented the most number of patent grants are Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, Fish & Richardson, and Cantor Colburn LLP.
  • Computer technology is no further behind this year than any other industry. Computer Technology, Digital communication and Telecommunications held on to the top three spots in the R&D areas with 35,464, 18,285 and 17,865 patents issued respectively. Top patent awardees in this arena were Qualcomm (542), Ericsson (828), Samsung Electronics (803), and LG Electronics (755).
  • When it comes to the tech industry, patents are their lifeblood. The number of patents filed by companies such as Samsung, IBM, Canon, and Google, proves how much these tech companies rely on patents. Some of the world’s well-known discoveries have been found through university research. Although the list is lengthy, here are few of the top research institutes like the University of California, Industrial Technologies Russia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University who obtained the highest number of patents during the first half of 2016.

In today’s technologically driven world, it is imperative that every business steeped in new ideas or innovations should be more IP-aware.  The only way to keep the competitors at bay is creating a shield of strategic IP-protection to provide complete certainty that your place in the market is safe.

Download the complete report here

MaxVal provides custom range of landscape research and analysis services for in-house staff or through external legal counsel. Reach us at bd@maxval.com for your landscape and competitive analysis requirements.


1 Comment

Software Patents Are Against the First Amendment?

The end may be nearing for software patents which have been highly controversial in the tech industry for some time. The verdict issued on Friday by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that they did not pronounce a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a standing in the tech world as “patent troll”.

In the concurring opinion, Judge Haldane Robert Mayer indicated that patent law must provide similar safeguards as copyright law has in-built first amendment protection called the “fair use”. Judge Mayer states that “(1) patents constricting the essential channels of online communication run afoul of the First Amendment. (2) Claims directed to the software implemented on a generic computer are categorically not eligible for a patent.”

Considering the decision made by the Supreme Court in 2014 known as “Alice” covering patentable subject matter, Judge Mayer inferred that software is not patentable. “Software lies in the antechamber of patentable invention. Because generically-implemented software is an “idea” insufficiently linked to any defining physical structure other than a standard computer, it is a precursor to technology rather than technology itself”, says Judge Mayer.

This does not mean that there will be an immediate end to software patents as this opinion was the concurring opinion. Even now the legal authorities from relevant courts are skeptical about patenting software and the chances of rejections are high.

As per Maxval’s research and USPTO data the case details are as below:

 Type  Name
Court CAFC
Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Plaintiff Attorney Brooke Ashley May Taylor
Defendant Symantec Corp.|Trend Micro Incorporated|Trend Micro, Inc. (USA)|Intel Corporation
Defendant Attorney Dean G. Dunlavey
Defendant Law Firm Latham & Watkins LLP
Product Anti-virus and Internet security products
Patent US5987610|US6073142|US6460050|US7506155
Closed date 9/30/2016
Basis of Termination Affirmed-in-Part and Reversed-in-Part

For more details, please click on the case links:

http://litigation.maxval-ip.com/Litigation/DetailView?CaseID=7PjozxHUWm8%3d
http://litigation.maxval-ip.com/Litigation/DetailView?CaseID=c3hlZj0QJB8%3d
http://litigation.maxval-ip.com/Litigation/DetailView?CaseID=N6J_Pa908VM%3d

acacia-apple-verdict


Leave a comment

$22 Million Verdict: Cellular Communications Equipment wins demonstrative victory against Apple Inc.

acacia-apple-verdict

After finding that Apple willfully infringed on a patent, EDTX has adjured Apple to pay $22 million to Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research. CCE holds a portfolio of telecommunications patents, mostly into Long-Term Evolution (LTE) technologies. Attorneys from Caldwell Cassady & Curry, a high-stakes civil litigation firm specializing in patent infringement and co-founder disputes, represented CCE in the Eastern District of Texas case.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2014, accused Apple of selling multiple products that infringe upon the U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820. The patent is titled ”Apparatus, system, and method for designating a buffer status reporting format based on detecting pre-selected buffer conditions”. The wrangle started when CCE impeached Apple of also infringing six other of its patents. By the time the cases went to trial, only one patent was in the stand. That patent was acquired by CCE from Nokia Corp. Engineer Benoist Sebire.

Apple attempted to prove that the claims of the ‘820 patent were invalid. However, the jury rejected the assertions made, as the evidence submitted was not convincing. Since the infringement was found to be willful, the patent holder can appeal to court towards enhancing the damage up to 3 times, which can roughly be around $68 million in this particular litigation.

According to USPTO data and MaxVal’s own research, Apple has not yet confirmed whether it will appeal the decision.

Maxval’s link of the case

Type

Names

Case Number 6:14-cv-00251
Court Texas Eastern District Court
Filed date 04/07/14
Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
Plaintiff Attorney Jeffrey Ray Bragalone
Plaintiff Law Firm Bragalone Conroy PC
Counter Claimant Apple Inc.
Defendant Apple Inc. | AT&T Inc. | AT&T Mobility LLC|Verizon Communications, Inc.| Cellco Partnership 
doing business as Verizon Wireless|Sprint Corporation |Sprint Corporation |Sprint Solutions, Inc.| Sprint Spectrum L.P.| Boost Mobile, LLC|T-Mobile USA, Inc.| T-Mobile US, Inc.
Counter Defendant Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
Defendant Attorney Douglas E Lumish
Defendant Law Firm Latham & Watkins LLP 
Product Apple mobile devices and services for mobile device communications
Patent US6377804|US6819923|US7215962|US7941174|US8055820|US6810019
Closed date Yet to be closed
Basis of Termination Judgment on the Merits – Defendant
Outcome of District court judgment Defendant
Damages amount $ $22,118,216


Leave a comment

False Testimony Leads to Triple Damages Award by EDTX against Samsung

edtx-samsung_blog_banner

Samsung Electronics was punished with a $21 million enhanced damages award after finding egregious willful infringement of patents held by Imperium IP Holdings of the Cayman Islands.

Judge Mazzant cited the US Supreme Court’s decision this June in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics while making his determination to triple the damages. At Halo, the majority opinion held that the two-step Seagate test is inconsistent with § 284, which has no explicit limit or condition on when enhanced damages are appropriate. Imperium IP Holdings v. Samsung Electronics in E.D. Tex. is the first case to apply with Halo standard for awarding enhanced damages.

The original complaint was filed on June 2014 by Imperium IP seeking damages from Samsung for infringing the patents. On February 2016, the jury verdict delivered that Samsung had willfully infringed upon the following  patents-in-suit:

1 – U.S. Patent No. 7092029 titled Strobe Lighting System for Digital Images.

2 – U.S. Patent No. 6271884, titled Image Flicker Reduction with Fluorescent Lighting.

An initial complaint of Imperium IP against Samsung seeking relief targeted Samsung products which allegedly infringed Imperium’s patents ‘029 and ‘884.

In this case, the court decided to award enhanced damages to Samsung, because of egregious behavior on the part of Samsung,  including attempts to copy the technology and  moreover, false testimony given by Samsung. Samsung’s representatives testified under oath that they only became aware of Imperium IP’s patents in June 2014, the first time the infringement action was brought to court. However, this was proved incorrect by depositions and other discovery during trial.  Previously, Samsung had also made an attempt to purchase the patents-in-suit from Imperium, concealing its identity through a patent broker. The court thus found that Samsung was aware of Imperium’s patents since at least April 2011 instead of June 2014.

While deciding to award enhanced damages, the court was guided by the non-exclusive factors developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit decided in 1992. Likewise, Samsung has also made an attempt in defense to declare that it wasn’t liable for infringing on imaging sensors which it purchased from Tokyo-based Sony Corporation. During September 2015, a damages expert for Imperium deposed that the company wasn’t targeting sensors which Samsung purchased from Sony, but an infringement report on the same day which used a citation only listing Sony sensors.

Court decided that Samsung’s decision not to declare the Sony license defense until November 2015, post the deadline to file for summary judgement and months after receiving the Sony license agreement in April 2015, was evidence that Samsung vigorously intended to not assert the Sony license.

According to USPTO data  and MaxVal’s own research, Imperium accused Samsung in 3 PTAB cases out of which 1 wasn’t instituted.

 

Case Number Petition document Institution document Status
IPR2015-01231 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioners) hereby petitions for inter partes review of claims 1-6, 14, and 17-19 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,271,884. The petition was denied by order due to all challenged claims of the 884 patent  and adding further to the case, that no inter partes review was instituted. Not-instituted
IPR2015-01232 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioners) hereby petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Pat. No. 7,092,029 (“the ’029 Patent”), issued to
ESS Technology, Inc. (“ESS”).
Petitioner demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 of the ’029 patent. Consequently, we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Shimada. ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 of the ’029 patent. Instituted
IPR2015-01233 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioners) hereby petition for inter partes review of claims 1 and 10 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,290. Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing the unpatentability of claims 1 and 10 of the ’290 patent on certain of the grounds asserted in the Petition.
ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1 and 10 of the ’290 patent.
Instituted