June 26, 2019
Authored and Edited by Matthew J. Hlinka; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, Nos. 2017-2474 et al. (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding eleven patents owned by Elm not unpatentable.
Elm asserted infringement of eleven patents relating to stacked integrated circuit memory against Samsung, Micron, and SK Hynix, who then filed thirteen IPR petitions challenging Elm’s patents at the PTAB. The PTAB found that the petitions did not provide sufficient evidence to establish unpatentability because they did not show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art references. Samsung, Micron, and Hynix appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that that the evidence presented below failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the proposed combination. The court credited Elm’s expert’s testimony that integrated-circuit technology is complex and that the evidence did not show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected success in replacing the primary reference’s deposition process while still achieving the high purity level required for the components. The court also rejected appellants’ argument that the proposed modification was “trivial” because the challenged patents incorporated by the asserted prior art by reference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the PTAB’s patentability determinations.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), patentability, Obviousness (35 USC § 103), semiconductors
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.