Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. KP Innovations 2 LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00101
• Patent #: 10,499,168
• Filed: November 7, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): KP Innovations 2, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 18-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System, Method, and Apparatus for Providing Interpretive Communication on a Network
• Brief Description: The ’168 patent relates to systems for providing real-time interpreting services over a network. The challenged claims are directed to a specific hardware embodiment: a two-sided communication device with a single housing containing cameras and displays on opposite sides to allow for simultaneous use, such as by two users interacting with a remote interpreter.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Okaya - Claims 18-21 are anticipated by, or obvious over, Okaya.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Okaya (Patent 5,808,663).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Okaya, which discloses a cube-shaped "multimedia carousel" for videoconferencing, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Okaya’s device has four outwardly facing sides, each equipped with its own camera and display panel. This configuration met the limitations of independent claim 18 requiring a housing with a first side and a second side, a first input device (camera) and first display on the first side, and a second input device (camera) on the second side. Petitioner asserted two alternative theories for meeting the final limitation of claim 18, which requires that a user can access components on both sides "at the same time." The first theory argued that Okaya’s intended use by a team of up to four people inherently disclosed simultaneous access by at least two users on opposite sides. The second theory, relying on the Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation of "access," argued that a single user operating a connected PC could "access" all cameras simultaneously by transmitting all video feeds to a remote participant.
  • Key Aspects: The dependent claims were also met, as the cube shape has opposite-facing sides (claim 19), the input devices are cameras (claim 20), and a second display is present on the second side (claim 21).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Harma - Claims 18-20 are obvious over Harma.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Harma (International Publication No. WO 01/31893).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Harma discloses a mobile phone that meets the limitations of claims 18-20. Harma’s device includes a housing with a front side and a rear side. The front (first side) has a display and a first camera, while the rear (second side) has a second camera. Petitioner argued that Harma met the "at the same time" access limitation of claim 18 by teaching that a single user can view a split-screen image on the display composed of simultaneous feeds from both the front and rear cameras. This functionality allows a user to access the first camera, the second camera, and the display at the same time.
  • Key Aspects: This ground specifically addresses a single-user scenario, aligning with the Patent Owner’s apparent infringement theory, and covers all limitations of claims 18-20. Claim 21 is not challenged under this ground as Harma does not disclose a second display.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Nagasawa in view of Harma - Claims 18-21 are obvious over Nagasawa in view of Harma.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nagasawa (Patent 6,782,281) and Harma (International Publication No. WO 01/31893).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets claim 21. Nagasawa discloses a foldable "flip phone" with two displays: a primary display on the inner surface (first side) and a secondary display on the outer surface (second side). Harma teaches the benefits of a mobile phone with two cameras on opposite sides for capturing both the user and their surroundings. The combined teachings would result in a foldable phone with an inner display and camera (first side) and an outer display and camera (second side). This configuration meets all limitations of claims 18-20 and, critically, satisfies claim 21’s requirement of a "second display device residing on the second side of the housing."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Harma's dual-camera feature with Nagasawa's dual-display foldable phone. Both references are in the same field of mobile telephones and offer complementary multimedia enhancements. A POSITA would be driven by market trends toward feature convergence to integrate Harma's dual-camera functionality into Nagasawa's device to obtain the benefits of both technologies in a single, compact form factor.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved integrating a known component (a second camera) into a well-understood device platform (a flip phone). The petition noted this was a matter of routine design and engineering.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the Board need not formally construe any claim terms. However, for its obviousness arguments in the Harma and Nagasawa grounds, Petitioner relied on the Patent Owner's apparent interpretation of the term "to access," which appears to include a single user controlling or viewing feeds from input devices on opposite sides of the housing at the same time (e.g., via a split-screen view).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the petition was filed promptly after receiving infringement contentions, the co-pending district court litigation is in its infancy with trial not scheduled until September 2026, and the merits of the petition are particularly strong.
• §325(d): Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) is improper because the prior art references relied upon (Okaya, Harma, and Nagasawa) were not before the Examiner during prosecution and are materially different from the art that was considered.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 18-21 of the ’168 patent as unpatentable.