Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp.,  IPR2017-01188, Paper 86 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2021).
Before: Parvis, White, McMillin.

In this decision on remand from the Federal Circuit, patent owner moved to terminate the proceeding because, among other reasons, a parallel district court litigation had proceeded to a jury verdict upholding the validity of the challenged patent. The patent owner argued that moving forward with this proceeding would frustrate the purpose of providing an efficient substitute for resolution of validity issues announced in precedential decisions like NHK Spring  and Fintiv.

The Board denied the motion because once instituted, a petitioner is entitled to a final written decision. Since the instant proceeding had already been instituted, NHK Spring  and Fintiv  did not apply. In addition, the Board denied the motion to terminate because the parallel district court litigation was presently stayed pending resolution of the IPR proceeding.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.