Untitled case

This case, IPR2024-01377, involves a patent dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227. The patent owner is ArcelorMittal SA, a major global operating company in the steel and mining industry. The petitioner is POSCO Co., Ltd., another significant operating company within the steel industry, indicating a dispute between industry competitors. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227, is titled "Coated steel strips, coated stamped products and methods" and generally covers hot-stamped steel products and their manufacturing processes. Specifically, it details a pre-coated steel strip, typically featuring an aluminum or aluminum alloy pre-coating with a controlled thickness (20-33 micrometers), designed for hot-stamping to create durable components, particularly for automotive applications. While this IPR directly challenges the patent's validity, the underlying technology is central to the production of high-strength steel used in vehicles.

The procedural posture of IPR2024-01377 is notable as it was "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the PTAB. The Board initially instituted this IPR along with a related petition (IPR2024-01376 for U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602) on January 23, 2026. However, ArcelorMittal, the patent owner, subsequently requested Director Review of these institution decisions. In a significant procedural move, the Director effectively vacated the institution decisions for both IPR2024-01376 and IPR2024-01377. The Director's order articulated a policy favoring efficiency, stating that "at most, one of Petitioner's two challenges to each of the '602 and '227 patents should move forward because multiple parallel petitions challenging the same patent are disfavored, as this places an unnecessary burden on the Board and raises issues of fairness, timing, and efficiency." Consequently, the Director allowed two other parallel petitions (IPR2025-00370 and IPR2025-00371) filed by POSCO challenging the same patents to proceed, while discontinuing IPR2024-01377 and its companion case.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting the PTAB's evolving approach to managing inter partes review proceedings. The Director's discretionary denial, based on efficiency and the disfavoring of multiple parallel petitions against the same patent, underscores a broader trend at the USPTO to streamline post-grant reviews and prevent petitioners from filing redundant challenges. This active management by the Director shapes the strategic landscape for patent challengers and owners alike, influencing decisions on whether and when to file IPRs. The commercial importance of the patent is further highlighted by parallel litigation: ArcelorMittal has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against VinFast Auto LLC in the Central District of California (2:24-cv-03128), and an investigation has been initiated at the International Trade Commission (337-TA-1402), both concerning the technology at issue.

This case involves a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227, rather than a traditional district court patent infringement litigation. A parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2024-01377, was also filed against the patent but was not instituted.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

IPR2024-01377 (U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227)

• Filing: On September 6, 2024, Posco Co Ltd. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2024-01377) challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227. The patent owner was ArcelorMittal SA.
• Outcome: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision on August 19, 2025, to not institute the IPR on "procedural" grounds. This means the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the patentability challenges, likely due to an issue with the petition itself (e.g., timeliness, completeness, or discretionary denial factors), although the specific procedural reason is not detailed in publicly available summaries.
• Effect on Litigation: Due to the non-institution, IPR2024-01377 had no direct impact on the co-pending ITC investigation, as no trial was initiated to review the patent's claims.

ITC Investigation (Patent Infringement Litigation)

Investigation No. 337-TA-1402: Certain High-Strength Aluminum or Aluminum Alloy-Coated Steel, and Automotive Products and Automobiles Containing Same

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • On April 17, 2024, ArcelorMittal (of Luxembourg) filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
  • The complaint was supplemented on April 24, 2024, and May 1, 2024.
  • ArcelorMittal alleged that the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain high-strength aluminum or aluminum alloy-coated steel, and automotive products containing the same, infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 and U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227.
• Institution of Investigation:
  • On May 24, 2024, the USITC voted to institute Investigation No. 337-TA-1402.
  • The named respondents in the investigation included VinFast Auto Ltd. (Vietnam), VinFast Trading and Production JSC (Vietnam), VinFast Auto, LLC (USA), VinFast USA Distribution, LLC (USA), and Vingroup USA, LLC (USA).
• Pre-trial/Trial Events:
  • An evidentiary hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from March 3-7, 2025.
• Initial Determination & Review:
  • On July 18, 2025, the ALJ issued a final Initial Determination (ID), finding no violation of Section 337. The ALJ notably found that ArcelorMittal satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
  • Both ArcelorMittal (Complainant) and the Respondents filed petitions for review of the ID on August 1, 2025.
• Final Disposition:
  • On September 18, 2025, the Commission issued its final determination. The Commission found no violation of Section 337. It also determined to take no position on the remaining findings in the final ID concerning infringement, whether the domestic industry articles practiced the asserted patents' claims, the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, and other invalidity grounds.
  • The investigation was terminated on the same date.

Despite multiple attempts to identify the specific counsel of record for Petitioner POSCO Co., Ltd. in IPR2024-01377 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227, the names of the attorneys and their associated firms have not been explicitly listed in the publicly available search results.

While searches confirmed POSCO Co., Ltd. as the Petitioner, and that the case was "Not Instituted - Procedural," the detailed information regarding their legal representation for this specific Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding is not readily accessible through the conducted web searches. Documents such as a "Power of Attorney" (often filed as a docket entry to identify counsel) were referenced for the case, but the content of these documents, including attorney names, was not provided in the search snippets.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing POSCO Co., Ltd. in IPR2024-01377 cannot be identified with the available information.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2024-01377, concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227, the Patent Owner is ArcelorMittal. The Petitioner is POSCO Co., Ltd.. Although the initial status indicated "Not Instituted - Procedural," docket entries show that the IPR was initially instituted on January 23, 2026, but was subsequently terminated on July 23, 2025, by a Director's Order in favor of co-pending IPR2025-00370 and IPR2025-00371.

Based on publicly available information for related IPR proceedings involving ArcelorMittal and POSCO (e.g., IPR2024-01376), the Patent Owner, ArcelorMittal, was represented by:

• Brian Buroker

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Brian Buroker is a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. He has extensive experience in patent litigation, including IPRs, district court cases, and Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

• Benjamin Hershkowitz

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Benjamin Hershkowitz is an associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent litigation and IPRs.

• Mark N. Reiter

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mark Reiter is a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher with a focus on intellectual property litigation, including complex patent disputes across various technologies.

It is important to note that while IPR2024-01377 was ultimately terminated, these attorneys would have represented ArcelorMittal during the initial phases of the proceeding leading up to the institution decision and subsequent Director's review.