Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. NuCurrent Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2019-00049
• Patent #: 10,063,100
• Filed: May 28, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): NuCurrent, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-9, 12-20, and 22-25

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Electrical System Incorporating a Single Structure Multimode Antenna for Wireless Power Transmission Using Magnetic Field Coupling
• Brief Description: The ’100 patent describes a multimode antenna for wireless power systems. The antenna uses a single, compact structure comprising an outer and an inner inductor coil electrically connected in series with a shared terminal, which allows for tuning to multiple operating frequencies.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Riehl - Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are obvious over Riehl.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Riehl (Application # 2014/0035383).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Riehl discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Riehl teaches a dual-mode wireless power receiver with two concentric inductor coils (L2 and L3) formed on a printed circuit board and connected in series. The outer coil (L2) is configured for a high resonant frequency (6.78 MHz), and the inner coil (L3) contributes to a low resonant frequency (100 kHz). The coils are joined at a connection point that serves as a shared third terminal. Riehl's capacitor network (C2a, C2b, C2q) functions as both the claimed "control circuit" and "selection circuit," which modifies the antenna's operating frequency by effectively shunting the inner coil (L3) at high frequencies, thereby changing the total inductance of the circuit.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference. However, for limitations argued as obvious modifications (e.g., the specific gap between coils), Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to optimize the design to reduce mutual inductance. This is a known design goal, and references like Riehl IEEE and Mukherjee were cited as evidence of a POSITA's knowledge.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because implementing the dual-mode antenna as shown in Riehl involved applying well-understood principles of resonant circuits and inductor design to achieve predictable high- and low-frequency operation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Riehl and Riehl IEEE - Claims 4, 15, and 25 are obvious over Riehl in view of Riehl IEEE.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Riehl (Application # 2014/0035383) and Riehl IEEE (an article titled “Wireless Power Systems for Mobile Devices Supporting Inductive and Resonant Operating Modes,” Mar. 2015).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Riehl to address additional claim limitations. For claim 4, which required a conductive wire comprising "two or more filars electrically connected in parallel," Petitioner argued that while Riehl did not explicitly disclose this, Riehl IEEE did. Riehl IEEE, which shares an inventor and subject matter with Riehl, taught using a multi-conducting-layer coil with parallel traces to achieve a high quality factor (Q). For claim 25, which required operation at a current exceeding 500 mA, Riehl IEEE disclosed a system converting 5W of power at a 5V output, corresponding to 1 Ampere (1000 mA) of current through the coils.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA implementing Riehl’s dual-mode receiver would combine its teachings with Riehl IEEE to improve performance. The motivation for using parallel filars (as taught by Riehl IEEE) was to increase the coil's quality factor (Q), a well-known and desirable goal for improving efficiency in wireless power transfer.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in applying the parallel-trace coil structure from Riehl IEEE to the Riehl receiver, as it was a known technique for improving a predictable electrical property (Q-factor) in a similar device.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Riehl and Yu - Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17-20, 22, and 24 are obvious over Riehl in view of Yu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Riehl (Application # 2014/0035383) and Yu (Korean Patent Application Publication No. 10-2013-0045307).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed the limitation that the gap between the inner and outer coils (the "third gap") is greater than the gaps between the turns within each coil (the "first and second gaps"). Petitioner contended that if Riehl was found not to disclose this explicitly, Yu provided the missing teaching. Yu described a two-coil structure for wireless charging where the gap between the inner and outer coils (e.g., 3.0 mm) was explicitly shown to be greater than the intra-coil gaps (e.g., 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm). Yu also taught specific gap dimensions falling within the ranges of claims 3 and 19 (e.g., "at least about 0.1 mm").
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Riehl's circuit with Yu's coil geometry to solve the known problem of mutual interference between concentric coils. Yu explicitly stated that the purpose of the larger inter-coil gap was to "prevent loss of performance due to mutual interference." This provided a clear reason to apply Yu's physical layout to the electrical system of Riehl.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect that incorporating Yu's spacing technique into Riehl's antenna would predictably reduce mutual inductance, achieving the desired result of an operational dual-mode antenna without requiring complex tuning circuitry.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Riehl with Kanno (for variable wire width, claim 12), Sung (for a flexible substrate, claim 16), and Kazuya (for specific inductance values, claim 23). Petitioner also presented tertiary combinations including Yu with these other references.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of Post-Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-9, 12-20, and 22-25 of the ’100 patent as unpatentable.