PTAB

IPR2022-00185

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Scramoge Technology Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Power Transmitting Apparatus and Wireless Power Receiving Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’941 patent describes a wireless power transfer system comprising a transmitting apparatus and a receiving apparatus. The system uses corresponding magnets in each apparatus, with opposing polarities to create an attractive force for alignment, and features a receiving coil disposed to surround the magnet in the receiving apparatus.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Itabashi - Claims 1-6 are obvious over Itabashi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Itabashi (Patent 9,143,041).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Itabashi discloses a "non-contact charging apparatus" that meets all limitations of independent claim 1. Itabashi's "power-receiving device" includes a "secondary coil 301" (the receiving coil) and "magnetic attraction means 311" (the first magnet). This magnet is positioned to attract a corresponding magnet (the second magnet) in the "power-supplying device" with an opposing polarity to ensure proper alignment. Critically, Petitioner asserted that Itabashi explicitly teaches and illustrates that the receiving coil "concentrically encircl[es]" the first magnet, satisfying the key limitation added during prosecution to overcome prior art. Petitioner further contended that Itabashi teaches the limitations of dependent claims 2-6, including disposing the coil and magnet on the same plane (claim 2), placing the magnet in a central region of the coil (claim 3), and using magnets with specific flux densities (claim 4) and diameters (claim 5) that fall within the claimed ranges or would have been obvious optimizations of known parameters.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Itabashi in view of Makita - Claims 7-8 are obvious over Itabashi in view of Makita.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Itabashi (Patent 9,143,041) and Makita (Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. 2012-095456).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Itabashi provides the base system as detailed in Ground 1. For claim 7, which recites specific magnetization methods (e.g., "top and bottom magnetization method"), Petitioner asserted Itabashi's disclosure of a permanent magnet "magnetized in a thickness direction" that generates a strong attractive force from its front face inherently teaches a top-and-bottom method. To the extent it does not, Makita explicitly discloses permanent magnets with N-S poles for attraction, corresponding to the claimed method. For claim 8, which adds a "hall sensor disposed between the first magnet and the second magnet," Petitioner argued this element is taught by Makita. Makita discloses a Hall element (105) disposed between the magnets of its primary and secondary devices to measure the magnetic field and control power transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings because both Itabashi and Makita are in the same field of wireless charging and address the common problem of coil alignment for efficiency. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Makita's well-known Hall sensor technology into Itabashi's system to add the benefit of more precise control over power transmission based on optimal alignment.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a standard Hall sensor with a magnetic alignment system involves the use of predictable and well-understood electronic components.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Makita - Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are obvious over Makita.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Makita (Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. 2012-095456).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Itabashi, Petitioner argued that Makita alone renders the claims obvious. Makita's "secondary side device" is a wireless power receiving apparatus with a "secondary coil 201" and a "protruding magnetic body 203" (first magnet). This magnet is arranged inside the coil and attracts a "permanent magnet 103" (second magnet) in the "primary side device" with an opposing polarity. Petitioner contended that Makita’s figures clearly show the receiving coil surrounding the first magnet, meeting the limitation of claim 1. Makita also allegedly teaches disposing the magnet in a central region of the coil (claim 3), using permanent magnets with N-S poles corresponding to a "top and bottom" magnetization method (claim 7), and incorporating a Hall sensor between the magnets (claim 8).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 4-6 over Makita in view of Itabashi (Ground 4), arguing a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the specific magnet flux densities and dimensions from Itabashi into Makita's system as a matter of routine optimization to improve alignment force and performance.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under the Fintiv factors. The parallel district court proceeding was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, discovery not yet open, and minimal investment by the parties or the court. Petitioner asserted it acted diligently by filing the IPR less than three months after receiving infringement contentions. To minimize overlap, Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue in the district court any obviousness ground that includes Itabashi or Makita as a primary reference. Finally, Petitioner argued the petition has strong merits and challenges more claims than are asserted in the parallel litigation, which promotes systemic efficiency.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’941 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.