Yesterday (July 18), two decisions came out;IPR Appeal filed by Samsung – Affirming PTABs final written decision.IPR Appeal filed by Google – Affirming PTABs final written decision. This means that the Federal Circuit supports the validity of Neonode’s 879 patent claims as non-obvious This renders into two interesting observations; We all have to wait and […]
Shortly after the hearing, the three judges came out with a decision for 993. Three working days later! That’s quick.The decision was to Affirm the IPR boards decision, that the 993 patent is invalid. Hence, Neonode’s appeal failed. It is permissible to petition the Supreme Court, though they rarely hear patent cases, and only when […]
This Thursday the Appeal live hearing was conducted, covering all four cases:22-2134 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [993 IPR]23-2304 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [879 District Court]23-1464 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Neonode Smartphone LLC [879 IPR by Samsung]23-1638 Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLC [879 IPR by Google]The […]
[or rather One Hearing to Decide Them All] FACTS An UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COORDINATE RELATED APPEALS was filed April 16. The motion was filed by Samsung Electronics to coordinate their appeal case with other related cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Samsung requests that their appeal be coordinated with […]
Review of Neonode’s (last) response (April 2024) Erroneous “Three Meanings” Conclusion: Neonode argues that Samsung failed to demonstrate that the claim term in question, specifically limitation 1[b], is indefinite. [three potential and conflicting meanings] Samsung insisted that it is unclear whether the “only one option” refers to “the ‘multi-step operation,’ a ‘function,’ or something else.” […]
This post will deal with Samsung’s response (in appeal at Court of Appeals), filed February 2024. Short back story; Patent 8,095,879 was deemed indefinite, due to the following expression;wherein the representation consists of only one option for activating the function In this response, Samsung now wants to add the term “gliding” as indefinite. Seemingly worried […]
Long time, no post…. Well, since not much have happened since judgement of invalidity (Aug 2) from Markman hearing on patent 879, there was not much to write about.But now we have a new document to analyze and comment on; Neonode’s opening brief on the Appeal after Markman. The big question now is if the […]
Was about to write a post about the (unclear) outcome of the Markman hearing in July, where many have asked for my opinion and analysis. I didn’t have much to say, really… The court order says Indefinite, which is reason for invalidity.But that decision was not yet (taken or) out. So my take was wait […]
Markman hearing is soon here. It’s happening on Monday (July 10th). EDIT: It is happening now, rescheduled back to today; July 7th. I commented on the first brief from Samsung here Now I have looked at the response from Neonode (May 19) and the sur-rebuttal from Samsung (June 9) First out; Neonode’s response from May […]
Samsung’s opening claim construction was filed on April 14th. In that Samsung argues that Neonode tries to alter the scope of its claimed invention. 879 Claim 1:1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program with computer program code, which, when read by a mobile handheld computer unit, allows the computer to present a […]
Iwerback Patent Report (IPR) 