Legal Opinion
Papst Licensing Gmbh & Co. Kg v. Samsung Electronics America
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 23, 2019No. 2018-1777PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Taranto, Circuit Judge.
*1246 Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG owns U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437 . Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) successfully petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of the '437 patent. In its final written decision, the Board determined that claims 1-38 and 43-45 are unpatentable for obviousness based on a combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,081 (Aytac), a publication setting forth standards for the Small Computer System…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Harold Martin v. Department of JusticeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Google LLC v. Hammond Development International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022
- Synqor, Inc. v. Vicor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2021
- Ddr Holdings, LLC v. priceline.com LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2024
- Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2024
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.