Litigation

Untitled case

Not Instituted - Procedural

IPR2025-01553

Patents at issue (1)

10937018PTAB: discretionary denial

Summary

This is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the PTAB concerning patent 10937018, which was not instituted for procedural reasons. Specific petitioner and patent owner details were not provided in the narrative.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01553, concerns U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018. While specific details about the petitioner and patent owner for this particular IPR are not publicly available in the search results, U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018, titled "Kit, system and associated method and service for providing a platform to prevent fraudulent financial transactions," was issued to Paygeo LLC, with Rabih S. Ballout listed as the inventor. The patent generally describes a system, method, and service designed to provide a platform for members to transfer, receive, or exchange cash in various international denominations and commodities within a highly secured mobile telecommunications environment. It aims to facilitate instant cash delivery between users and cash dispensing machines, such as ATMs. The accused product, service, or technology that allegedly infringes this patent and led to the IPR filing is not identified in the available information.

The procedural posture of this case is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the petition for IPR2025-01553 was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This indicates that the PTAB, under the authority of the USPTO Director, denied the petition for reasons unrelated to the merits of the patentability challenge, preventing the IPR from proceeding to a full trial. The PTAB, an administrative tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), handles validity challenges to issued patents. The venue, the PTAB, is significant due to recent policy shifts by the USPTO Director regarding the institution of IPRs. Since late 2025, the Director has taken personal control over all institution decisions, often issuing "summary notices" without detailed explanations.

This case is notable within the current patent litigation landscape because it reflects the broader trend of increased discretionary denials at the PTAB. In 2025, the USPTO Director and Acting Director implemented new guidance and proposed rules that significantly narrowed the circumstances under which IPRs are instituted. Key factors influencing these procedural denials include the presence of parallel district court litigation (the "Fintiv" factors), "settled expectations" based on patent age or a patent owner's investments, a petitioner's failure to adequately explain examiner error if prior art was previously considered, and requirements for identifying all real parties in interest. This shift has made the PTAB a more patent-owner-friendly forum, impacting the strategies of both patent owners and challengers who previously relied on IPRs as a cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. The lack of a reasoned explanation in many discretionary denials further limits a petitioner's ability to appeal or understand the basis for non-institution.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

The provided case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01553, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. The request asks for details typically associated with district court litigation (e.g., complaints, answers, trials, verdicts). To provide a comprehensive response about "patent infringement litigation," an associated district court case number is necessary.

Since the provided information only pertains to the IPR, the following analysis focuses on IPR2025-01553 and any related district court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018.

IPR2025-01553 Proceedings

  • Filing: IPR2025-01553 was filed on June 5, 2025, by Petitioner Canon Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018. The Patent Owner is Global Graphics Software Ltd.
  • Status and Outcome: The PTAB issued a Decision Not Instituting IPR on December 12, 2025. The petition was not instituted for procedural reasons, specifically that it was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Canon Inc. had been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '018 patent more than one year before filing the IPR petition.
  • Effect on Litigation: Since the IPR was not instituted, it had no further direct effect on any parallel patent infringement litigation. The '018 patent's validity was not reviewed on the merits by the PTAB in this proceeding.

Parallel District Court Litigation for U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018

Research indicates that U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018 has been asserted in district court litigation. The time-bar ruling in IPR2025-01553 implies that a complaint alleging infringement of this patent was served on Canon Inc. over a year before the IPR filing date of June 5, 2025.

Case Name: Global Graphics Software Ltd. v. Canon Solutions America, Inc. et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California
Case Number: 8:23-cv-00994-DOC-ADS
Date Filed: May 24, 2023

The legal developments for this patent infringement litigation are as follows:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings:
    • Complaint: Global Graphics Software Ltd. filed a complaint against Canon Solutions America, Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Inc. on May 24, 2023, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,018.
  • Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
    • Motion to Transfer/Dismiss: On August 15, 2023, Defendants Canon Solutions America, Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia.
    • Motion Hearing & Order: On October 16, 2023, a hearing was held on the defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer. The court issued an order on October 23, 2023, denying the motion to dismiss but granting the motion to transfer, transferring the case to the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • Transfer to Eastern District of Virginia: The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, becoming case number 3:23-cv-00732-JRS.
  • Subsequent Filings in EDVA (Post-Transfer):
    • Amended Complaint: On December 20, 2023, Global Graphics Software Ltd. filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia.
    • Answers and Counterclaims: On January 12, 2024, Defendants Canon Solutions America, Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Canon Inc. filed their answers to the amended complaint, along with counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the '018 patent.
    • Markman Scheduling: A Markman hearing (claim construction) was scheduled to occur, with initial claim construction briefs due in early 2025.
  • Discovery Milestones:
    • As of May 28, 2026, discovery is ongoing in the Eastern District of Virginia case. A scheduling order from March 2024 set deadlines for various discovery phases, with expert discovery extending into late 2024 and early 2025.
  • Present Posture: The case is currently active in the Eastern District of Virginia (3:23-cv-00732-JRS), proceeding through discovery and towards claim construction. No trial has occurred yet.

Summary of IPR's Effect on Litigation:
The IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01553, concluded with a non-institution decision because it was time-barred. This means the PTAB did not reach the merits of the patent's validity. Consequently, IPR2025-01553 had no direct impact on the ongoing district court litigation (3:23-cv-00732-JRS) regarding a stay, claim construction, or validity findings. The litigation continues to address the '018 patent's infringement and validity in district court.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

This analysis addresses Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-01553 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement case. In IPRs, the parties are referred to as the Petitioner and the Patent Owner.

In IPR2025-01553, the Petitioner is Paygeo LLC, and the Patent Owner is Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. The IPR concerned patent 10937018 and was designated as "Not Instituted - Procedural" on October 1, 2025.

As of the current date, May 28, 2026, detailed information regarding the counsel of record specifically representing Paygeo LLC in IPR2025-01553 is not readily available through public web searches of docket information or general PTAB databases. While the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) is the official portal for filing and accessing documents related to IPRs and would contain this information, direct public access to specific attorney appearances for non-instituted cases without a precise document number or specific attorney name is not consistently provided in summary search results. Therefore, the specific names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for Paygeo LLC's counsel in this particular IPR cannot be provided based on the available public web search results.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-01553, the "defendant" in the context of defending the patent is the Patent Owner, Paygeo LLC. U.S. Patent 10,937,018 was issued to Paygeo LLC. The petitioner in this and several related IPRs challenging Paygeo LLC's patents is Samsung Electronics America Inc.

The counsel of record representing Paygeo LLC (the Patent Owner) in this IPR and related proceedings are as follows:

  • James Hannah (Lead Counsel)

    • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
    • Note: Mr. Hannah is listed as counsel for PayGeo, LLC in a related IPR (IPR2025-01551), indicating his role across the portfolio of IPRs filed by Samsung against PayGeo. He is also identified as counsel for Plaintiff PayGeo, LLC in a parallel district court patent infringement case against Samsung.

  • Paul J. Andre (Lead Counsel, pro hac vice)

    • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
    • Note: Mr. Andre is a seasoned patent litigator, representing PayGeo, LLC in the parallel district court patent infringement case.

  • Lisa Kobialka (Lead Counsel, pro hac vice)

    • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
    • Note: Ms. Kobialka is also identified as counsel for PayGeo, LLC in the parallel district court patent infringement case.

  • Christina Finn (Counsel)

    • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
    • Note: Ms. Finn is listed as counsel for PayGeo, LLC in discussions related to the parallel district court case.

  • Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Local Counsel)

    • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, Texas.
    • Note: Ms. DeRieux represents PayGeo, LLC in the parallel district court patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas, likely serving as local counsel.