The key issue in Lynk Labs v. Samsung is whether section 102(a)(2) prior art, which is not publicly accessible pre-filing, qualifies under IPR limits.
This case is significant due to the extensive use of section 102(a)(2) in technology fields, potentially reshaping the handling of similar prior art in patent reviews.
Samsung's IPR petition against Lynk's '400 patent highlights the impact of 'secret springing prior art' which may complicate patent validity assessments.
As prior art under 102(a)(2), the Martin application entered the scene after Lynk’s filing, bringing light to the challenges of patent litigation.
Collection
[
|
...
]