POSCO Co. Ltd. v. ArcelorMittal

This inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involves two prominent global steel manufacturing companies: Petitioner POSCO Co. Ltd. and Patent Owner ArcelorMittal. POSCO, a South Korean steelmaker, and ArcelorMittal, a Luxembourg-headquartered multinational steel and mining group, are both major operating companies in the steel industry, producing a wide range of steel products for sectors like automotive, shipbuilding, and construction. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602, titled "Coated Steel Strips, Coated Stamped Products and Methods." This patent broadly describes manufacturing methods and structures for multi-layered coatings on steel strips, which are subsequently formed by hot-stamping pre-coated steel blanks, primarily for applications in the automotive industry, focusing on properties like weldability.

The challenged technology relates to advanced coated steel products used in hot-stamping processes, critical for producing lightweight yet high-strength automotive components. POSCO filed this IPR petition (IPR2024-01376) against ArcelorMittal at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Although the Board initially instituted the review, the petition was ultimately terminated on procedural grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) on August 19, 2025. This section of the patent statute allows the PTAB to deny or terminate a petition when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office or in a prior IPR, often reflecting the Board's discretion in managing duplicative or parallel challenges.

This case is notable as it highlights the intense intellectual property competition between leading global steel producers over advanced materials. IPR2024-01376 is part of a series of related IPRs filed by POSCO against ArcelorMittal, including IPR2024-01377 (challenging a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227 B2) and later petitions IPR2025-00370 and IPR2025-00371, which also challenged the same patents. The Director of the USPTO denied ArcelorMittal's request for discretionary denial of these later petitions, noting that POSCO had previously invalidated a parent patent, which influenced the decision to allow the new challenges to proceed. This ongoing dispute extends beyond the PTAB, with reports indicating broader patent challenges in other jurisdictions, such as China, involving these parties and other major players like Nippon Steel and Chinese EV maker NIO, all vying for market share in the critical automotive steel sector. There is also an active parallel investigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1402) concerning high-strength aluminum or aluminum alloy-coated steel, further underscoring the significance of this technological area to the competing steel manufacturers.

POSCO Co. Ltd. v. ArcelorMittal, IPR2024-01376, involved a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 B2 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the petition was initially instituted, the proceeding was later terminated on procedural grounds related to parallel IPR challenges.

Here are the key legal developments and the outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Petition Filed (2024-09-06): POSCO Co. Ltd. filed the inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2024-01376, challenging claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 B2, owned by ArcelorMittal. The grounds for unpatentability were anticipation and obviousness over various prior art, primarily Engels.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response (2024-12-24): ArcelorMittal filed its preliminary response opposing institution of the IPR.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Institution Decision (2025-03-18): The PTAB issued a decision instituting the IPR, finding that POSCO had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This institution decision, referred to as Paper 11, also addressed arguments for discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors, considering parallel International Trade Commission (ITC) and district court proceedings.
• Patent Owner Request for Director Review of Institution (2025-04-01): ArcelorMittal requested Director review of the Board's decision to institute IPR2024-01376 (and IPR2024-01377).

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

• Termination on Procedural Grounds (2025-08-19): IPR2024-01376 was terminated by order of the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). This termination occurred after the Director's review of other parallel IPRs, which favored moving forward with later-filed petitions rather than multiple, overlapping challenges. The stated outcome for IPR2024-01376 is "Terminated."

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect:

• Concurrent IPR (IPR2024-01377): POSCO concurrently filed IPR2024-01377, challenging a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227 B2. This IPR also proceeded similarly, being instituted on March 18, 2025, and terminated on August 19, 2025, under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
• Later-Filed IPRs (IPR2025-00370 and IPR2025-00371): POSCO filed another set of IPRs, IPR2025-00370 (challenging US 10,961,602 B2) and IPR2025-00371 (challenging US 11,326,227 B2). ArcelorMittal sought discretionary denial of these petitions. On June 25, 2025, the Director denied ArcelorMittal's request, 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."
• Institution of Later IPRs (2025-07-23): IPR2025-00370 and IPR2025-00371 were subsequently instituted. This decision by the Director to allow the later-filed IPRs to proceed, while disfavoring multiple parallel petitions, directly led to the termination of IPR2024-01376 and IPR2024-01377 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
• Parallel District Court and ITC Proceedings: The challenged patent, US 10,961,602 B2, was also involved in active patent infringement litigation in a district court (2:24-cv-03128 in the Central District of California, filed April 16, 2024) and an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation (337-TA-1402, filed April 17, 2024), where ArcelorMittal was the plaintiff. The PTAB's institution decision for IPR2024-01376 considered the impact of these parallel proceedings under the Fintiv factors.

Outcome: IPR2024-01376 was initially instituted by the PTAB on March 18, 2025. However, following the Director's decision to allow later-filed IPRs by POSCO against the same patents to proceed, IPR2024-01376 was terminated on August 19, 2025, under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), effectively ending the review of this specific petition on procedural grounds without reaching a final written decision on the merits.

POSCO Co. Ltd. is represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson in the IPR2024-01376 proceeding. The counsel of record identified are:

• Jeremy Monaldo
  • Role: Lead counsel (implied by typical firm structure for PTAB proceedings).
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided search snippets for this specific case, Fish & Richardson has multiple offices, and further research would be needed to pinpoint his primary office location.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: As a principal at Fish & Richardson, a firm known for its extensive IP litigation, Jeremy Monaldo likely has substantial experience in patent litigation, particularly in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.
• Alexander Berg
  • Role: Counsel (likely an associate or counsel assisting lead counsel).
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Similar to Monaldo, his specific office location is not detailed in the provided information and would require further investigation.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Alexander Berg is associated with Fish & Richardson, indicating a focus on patent law and likely experience in post-grant proceedings given his appearance in this IPR.
• Sangki Park
  • Role: Counsel (likely an associate or counsel assisting lead counsel).
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: His specific office location is not detailed in the provided information.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Appearing as counsel for POSCO in this PTAB IPR, Sangki Park is involved in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings through Fish & Richardson.

The case IPR2024-01376 was not instituted on procedural grounds, with the PTAB terminating it and a parallel IPR (IPR2024-01377) in favor of continuing IPR2025-00370 and IPR2025-00371, related to the same patents and petitioner, based on a Director's Order under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). This decision was influenced by the existence of parallel ITC investigations and the Director's preference for only one petition against each challenged patent to proceed. While the Board initially instituted IPR2024-01376 and IPR2024-01377 on January 23, 2026, those decisions were later impacted by Director review.

I'll research ArcelorMittal's counsel of record for this proceeding.

Let me research ArcelorMittal's counsel team in more depth, plus the related district court/ITC litigation.

Let me verify the full counsel roster and check for any changes or additional counsel.

Counsel of Record — ArcelorMittal (party designated "Defendant" in the case metadata; Patent Owner/Respondent in the IPR)

Threshold clarification on party alignment. IPR2024-01376 is not itself an infringement action — it is POSCO's post-grant challenge, in which ArcelorMittal is the Patent Owner (the metadata labels it "Defendant"). The parallel infringement case is ArcelorMittal v. VinFast Auto, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-03128 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 16, 2024) — where ArcelorMittal is the plaintiff and the VinFast/Vingroup entities are the defendants — plus ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1402. I've covered both rosters below so the answer is complete regardless of how "defendant" is read.

---

A. ArcelorMittal's PTAB counsel in IPR2024-01376 (the case at bar)

Per Patent Owner's Notice of Power of Attorney (Paper 5, filed Sept. 24, 2024) and the joint filings/Board emails spanning IPR2024-01376 and IPR2024-01377, ArcelorMittal's PTAB team is Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (no separate local counsel needed before the PTAB):

Source record: PTAB Patent Owner Power of Attorney (IPR2024-01376, Paper 5); the Board's copies of party correspondence (e.g., the Mar. 5, 2025 email granting supplemental Fintiv briefing, signed "Brian M. Buroker, Reg. No. 39,125, Counsel for Patent Owner"); and the joint caption block listing "For PATENT OWNER: Brian M. Buroker, Benjamin Hershkowitz, Mark Reiter — GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP."

No in-house counsel for ArcelorMittal has been identified in the public PTAB record; the power of attorney names only Gibson Dunn.

---

B. Same team in the co-pending ArcelorMittal matters (additional names)

In the related ITC investigation and C.D. Cal. action, the ArcelorMittal side adds these Gibson Dunn attorneys (per the ITC hearing appearances and the Dec. 2, 2024 filing signed for Complainant):

• Raymond A. LaMagna — Gibson Dunn, Los Angeles, CA (333 S. Grand Ave.)
• Nathaniel R. Scharn — Gibson Dunn, Irvine, CA (3161 Michelson Dr.) — entered a Notice of Appearance on the C.D. Cal. docket (Apr. 17, 2024)
• Evan T. Kratzer — Gibson Dunn, Palo Alto, CA (310 University Ave.) — entered a Notice of Appearance on the C.D. Cal. docket (Apr. 16/18, 2024)
• Ashbey N. Morgan, Julia G. Tabat, Monica Lin — Gibson Dunn, Dallas, TX
• Sung Bin Lee — Gibson Dunn, New York, NY

---

C. Defense-side counsel in the actual infringement suit (VinFast entities)

If the question targets the infringement defendants in the parallel litigation, those defendants are VinFast Auto Ltd., VinFast Auto, LLC, VinFast USA Distribution, LLC, Vingroup USA, LLC, and VinFast Trading and Production JSC, represented in the ITC by Fish & Richardson P.C. (appearance list from the ITC hearing):

• Michael J. McKeon, Joseph V. Colaianni, Linhong Zhang, Sangki Park, April Sunyoung Park, Jack R. Wilson, Daniel Y. Lee, Irene Hwang, John Thuermer — Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. (1000 Maine Ave. SW)
• Ashley Bolt, Brian P. Boyd — Fish & Richardson, Atlanta, GA

⚠️ Cross-over worth noting: Fish & Richardson's Sangki Park appears for VinFast in the ITC and for POSCO as Petitioner in the IPRs (per the Petitioner's signature block: "Jeremy J. Monaldo, Sangki Park, Alexander H. Berg, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis"). That dual role is a real feature of this dispute, not a search artifact.

I could not verify by name the VinFast district-court counsel of record in C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-03128 — the case was stayed by joint stipulation (June 30, 2024) before substantial defense-side appearances were docketed. Treat the district-court defense roster as unconfirmed unless pulled directly from PACER.

---

D. Flags on the previously generated sections

1. "Status: Not Instituted – Procedural" (metadata) conflicts with the docket. The Board did institute on Paper 11 (Mar. 18, 2025) — confirmed by the Finnegan client alert analyzing the decision and by RPX Empower ("Institution: 03/18/2025"). The proceeding was later terminated (Paper 19, Aug. 19, 2025, under § 325(d)), not denied at institution. The metadata label is best read as "terminated pre-FWD on procedural grounds," but as written it is inaccurate.
2. The prior "Plaintiff representatives" section contradicts itself. It states institution on March 18, 2025 and then, in its closing paragraph, that the Board instituted "on January 23, 2026." The Jan. 23, 2026 date is (i) inconsistent with the rest of that section and with all docket sources and (ii) a future date relative to today (Sept. 27, 2025). Flagging as an apparent error.
3. Director-review date is ambiguous. The existing section places the Director's denial of ArcelorMittal's discretionary-denial request at June 25, 2025. Korean press coverage is split: The Guru reported a denial dated the 25th (article published ~June 30), while Seoul Wire (Aug. 20, 2025) describes the Director's decision as issued "지난달 23일" — i.e., July 23, 2025 — and the § 325(d) termination order as following on Aug. 19, 2025, consistent with PTAB Papers 18–19. The Aug. 19, 2025 termination is solid; the Director-decision date (June 25 vs. July 23) should be treated as unsettled pending the Director's written decision.
4. Counsel roles in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section are inferred, not sourced. That section speculates Monaldo is "lead counsel (implied by typical firm structure)" and gives no office locations. The PTAB signature blocks actually show Jeremy J. Monaldo (Reg. No. 58,680), Sangki Park (Reg. No. 77,261), and Alexander H. Berg (Reg. No. 79,866) at Fish & Richardson's Minneapolis office (60 South Sixth St., Suite 3200) — office location is documented, not unknown.

Primary sources: PTAB Patent Owner Power of Attorney, IPR2024-01376 Paper 5 (Sept. 24, 2024); Board-filed party correspondence (Mar. 5, 2025) signed by Buroker; PTAB Petition/PO filing caption pages at ptacts.uspto.gov; ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1402 hearing appearance transcript; C.D. Cal. docket entries 12, 14, 27; Finnegan client alert, "POSCO and the PTAB: Emerging Guidance on Fintiv's Application to ITC Proceedings" (May 12, 2025); RPX Empower PTAB docket 17837.