PTAB

IPR2022-01052

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Scramoge Technology Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Coil Unit for Wireless Power Transmission
Brief Description: The ’043 patent discloses a coil unit for wireless power transmission designed to address potential issues in multi-wire coils. The claimed invention comprises a first coil, a second coil with an open section, a first conductor connecting the coils, and an adjacent second conductor also connecting the coils, where the open section is positioned between the first and second conductors.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tamata (Patent 7,295,096).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tamata, which discloses a multi-layer inductor for use in resonant circuits, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. The inductor in Tamata comprises multiple stacked insulating layers with spiral metal wires. Petitioner mapped the “first coil” of claim 1 to Tamata’s second metal wire (22) and the “second coil” to the first metal wire (21). The required “open section” was identified as a separation in the windings of metal wire 21, designed to allow a lead to pass without contact. The “first conductor” and “second conductor” were mapped to adjacent conductive via holes (31) that connect the metal wires at regular intervals. The petition asserted that Tamata’s figures show the open section is positioned between two such adjacent via holes. For apparatus claims 6 and 16, Petitioner argued Tamata’s disclosure of using its inductor in a resonant circuit for a transmitter-receiver constitutes a "wireless power apparatus."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tamata (Patent 7,295,096) and Partovi (Application # 2009/0096413).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in case Tamata was found not to explicitly teach a "wireless power" application. Petitioner argued that Tamata discloses the physical structure of the claimed coil unit. Partovi explicitly teaches using structurally similar multi-layer inductors for inductive charging of portable devices. Partovi’s disclosure of a wireless power transfer system provides the context of use for Tamata’s inductor structure.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tamata’s inductor with Partovi’s wireless charging system to achieve known advantages. Partovi teaches that stacked multi-layer coils provide benefits such as higher flux density and lower resistance, leading to more efficient power transfer. Petitioner asserted that Tamata’s inductor possesses these exact characteristics, making it an ideal and obvious component for Partovi’s system.
- Expectation of Success: The combination would have been a straightforward implementation of known components (Tamata’s inductor in Partovi’s system) to achieve the predictable result of an efficient wireless power transfer apparatus.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Kita (Patent 7,403,090).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kita, which discloses a multi-layer variable inductor, also teaches all limitations of this subset of claims. Kita’s inductor includes stacked spiral coils (110, 116) on different layers. Petitioner mapped the “first coil” to the lower spiral coil (116) and the “second coil” to the upper spiral coil (110). The “open section” was identified as a gap created in the upper coil (110) in an “adjustment area,” where a portion of the coil is removed to fine-tune the inductance. The “first conductor” and “second conductor” were mapped to adjacent conductive through-holes (118) that connect the two coils. Petitioner asserted that Kita teaches these through-holes are not formed in the adjustment area, meaning the open section is necessarily positioned between two adjacent conductors.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-20 based on Kita in view of Partovi, relying on similar motivations to combine as those presented for the Tamata and Partovi combination, with the additional rationale that Kita’s adjustable inductor would be desirable for tuning Partovi’s high-frequency system.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court case was in its infancy, with the complaint having been filed only four months prior and infringement contentions served shortly before the IPR filing. Petitioner contended that investment in the parallel proceeding had been minimal, as no claim construction ruling had occurred and fact discovery was not closed. Further, Petitioner asserted it acted diligently and that because invalidity contentions had not yet been served in the district court, there was no overlap between the proceedings. The strong similarity between the asserted prior art and the ’043 patent was argued to weigh heavily in favor of institution in the public interest.

Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 10,491,043 as unpatentable.