"The case centers on the "Martin" reference, a patent application covering LED technology that was filed on April 16, 2003 and published on October 21, 2004. Martin was later abandoned and never became a patent. Lynk Labs' '400 patent claims a priority date of February 25, 2004, placing it squarely in the gap between Martin's filing and publication dates. Samsung successfully used Martin to challenge claims of the '400 patent as obvious in IPR."
"Although Martin was not publicly accessible when Lynk Labs filed its application, Martin was later published and also qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 102(e)(1) (or its parallel post-AIA statute 102(a)(2)). In reading the statute, the court concluded that Martin can be used in an IPR because it satisfies each of the two requirements (prior art + printed publication) even though its prior art date is well before its publication date."
Samsung and the U.S. government urged the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 25-308. The Federal Circuit held that a patent application filed before a challenged patent's priority date, but published afterwards, can serve as prior art in inter partes review by applying the filing-date rule of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(1). The Martin application was filed April 16, 2003, published October 21, 2004, and later abandoned; Lynk's '400 patent claims priority February 25, 2004, between those dates. Samsung used Martin to challenge the '400 patent as obvious, raising whether §311(b)'s "printed publications" require public accessibility timing or permit backdating to filing for IPR.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]