`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Haber, Ben
`Director_PTABDecision_Review
`Cook, Brian; jostling@fabricantllp.com; rcowell@fabricantllp.com; Whilt, Nicholas; vrubino@fabricantllp.com;
`eiturralde@fabricantllp.com; Fink, Tim; plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`RE: IPR2024-00041: Document(s) Filed - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Slyde Analytics, LLC
`Wednesday, May 8, 2024 6:35:13 PM
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear Director Vidal,
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned IPR respectfully requests Director Review of
`the Board’s decision not to institute review.
`
`In the Decision, the Board panel concluded that Petitioner could not satisfy the
`reasonably likely standard because it held the prior art (Yeung) did not meet
`the panel’s sua sponte claim construction of the terms “first power mode” and
`“second power mode.”
`
`Petitioner hereby provides the following priority-ranked list of the issues for
`which Petitioner seeks Director Review:
`
`1. Whether the panel erred as a matter of law when, in conflict with recent
`Federal Circuit decisions such as Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. and Director
`review decisions like Assa Abloy AB v. CPC Patent Techs. Pty., Ltd., it failed
`to allow the parties to be heard on a sua sponte claim construction before
`rendering its decision whether to institute. In the alternative, if not a legal
`error, whether, as a matter of policy and fairness, the panel should have
`allowed the parties to be heard on a sua sponte claim construction before
`it rendered its decision whether to institute.
`
`2. Whether the panel erred as a matter of law in issuing an overly narrow
`claim construction, not supported by the claim language or the
`specification, and whether the panel further erred as a matter of law in
`failing to consider Petitioner’s evidence under that construction.
`
`IPR2024-00041
`Ex. 3100
`
`
`
`3. Whether the Board erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion
`when, in conflict with the Board’s Trial Practice Guide and despite both
`parties’ agreement that no claim terms required express construction, it
`penalized Petitioner for not proffering an express claim construction at
`the institution stage.
`
`For the reasons above, and further discussed in Petitioner’s Request for
`Director Review, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Director review the
`panel’s decision and correct the errors therein.
`
`Thank You,
`Ben Haber
`Counsel for Petitioner, Samsung
`
`From: PTACTS_System@uspto.gov <PTACTS_System@uspto.gov>
`Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 3:24 PM
`To: Fink, Tim <tfink@omm.com>; plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Cc: Haber, Ben <bhaber@omm.com>; Cook, Brian <bcook@omm.com>; jostling@fabricantllp.com;
`rcowell@fabricantllp.com; Whilt, Nicholas <nwhilt@omm.com>; vrubino@fabricantllp.com;
`eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`Subject: IPR2024-00041: Document(s) Filed - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Slyde Analytics, LLC
`
`[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Document Filing Notice
`
`AIA Review No.:
`IPR2024-00041
`Petitioner:
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwon-si, KR
`Patent Owner:
`Slyde Analytics, LLC of , NY
`Patent No.:
`10198085
`Submitted Date: 05/08/2024
`Submitted By:
`Ben Haber, bhaber@omm.com
`
`The following document(s) has/have been filed.
`
`
`
`Document(s) List
`
`No. Document
`No.
`
`1
`
`13
`
`Document Type
`
`Document Name
`
`Filing
`Party
`
`Request for Director
`Review - Institution
`Decision
`
`Petitioner?s Request
`for Director Review
`
`Petitioner
`
`Availability
`
`Available
`for
`everyone.
`
`Questions regarding this receipt should be directed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at
`571-272-7822 or e-mail to Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`This e-mail is computer-generated. Do not reply to this e-mail because the e-mail box is not
`monitored.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
