Thin Ice That Held: Samsung’s IPR Strategy Survived Scrutiny at the Federal Circuit

by Dennis Crouch

Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Nos. 23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2025)

Two key canons of claim construction are that of claim differentiation and claim term differentiation - each patent claim  is presumed to have its own scope and coverage, as is each element of each claim.  The use of different terms in different claims "connotes different meanings." CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  But, these are not an incredibly strong presumptions, and the court has regularly construed different terms in separate claims to cover the same subject matter. See, Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

In its recent decision in Power2B v. Samsung, the Federal Circuit found another case where differing language did not differ the construction.  Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Nos. 23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2025). The patents at issue describe a handheld device that uses a light-emitting stylus with various functionality.   The PTAB sided with petitioner Samsung on almost all claims of the two challenged patents: US7952570 and US8547364. But, a divided PTAB found that claim 20 of '364 patent had not been proven unpatentable, with the majority concluding that Samsung had not properly argued the "generating control signals by the input circuitry" limitation of claim 20.  On appeal, Samsung argued that the Board abused its discretion because that claim 20 limitation was not materially different from claim 13's "output indication" limitation, which Samsung had properly addressed, and that these different terms merely expressed the same concept.  Samsung that nothing in the specification or claims identifies any difference between an "output indication" and a "control signal."