US PTAB IP Litigation

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB for permission to file a reply brief in its post‑grant review against GOMACO, citing alleged mischaracterizations and new arguments by the petitioner. The request emphasizes good cause and a rapid turnaround.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision upholding the eligibility of its ’723 slipform paver patent. The owner alleges factual, legal, and evidentiary errors, including misapplied collateral estoppel and ignored claim‑construction issues.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

Gomaco seeks denial of G&Z’s Director Review request, arguing the issues have been repeatedly litigated and that non‑appealable institution decisions cannot create collateral estoppel. The Board agrees, finding no new evidence and confirming PGR eligibility.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 30, 2024

In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 30, 2024

The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s ‘749 slipform paver patent are unpatentable, finding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments over the CIII manual and Rio actuator convincing.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

The USPTO Director denied GOMACO's request for a review of the institution decision in a post‑grant review of patent 11,772,723, leaving the institution in place.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 30, 2024

The PTAB held that all 15 claims of the ’571 slipform paving machine patent are unpatentable, finding the claims obvious over the CIII operator manual combined with Rio’s rotary actuator and other prior art.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s slipform paver patent are obvious over the CIII operator manual and Rio’s rotary actuator, rendering the claims unpatentable.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

The USPTO denied GOMACO's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00835, leaving the prior Board decision in place.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

Gomaco urges the PTAB Director to deny G&Z’s review request, arguing that the Board’s obviousness finding for the ’318 slipform paver patent is fully supported by the CIII and Rio prior art. The petitioner contends no claim construction is needed and that the Board’s reasoning is adequate.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

GOMACO challenges the PTAB’s decision on a slipform paver patent, asserting the Board failed to resolve a key claim‑construction issue and erred in its obviousness and copying analyses. The patent owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

The USPTO denied GOMACO's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00835, leaving the institution in place.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

patent instituted · Apr 30, 2024

Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that barred it from submitting examiner interview evidence in an IPR covering claims 1‑8 of a construction‑equipment patent.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00788

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB Director to allow a reply brief in IPR2024-00835, arguing that Gomaco introduced new, unsupported arguments about its GT‑3200 paving machine and mischaracterized the record.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

patent null · Apr 30, 2024

GOMACO has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of its ‘723 slipform paver patent. The petition alleges obviousness over the CIII manual, Rio and Files patents, and a lack of written description for a transducer placement. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the proceeding.

Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2024-00874

Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.

patent null · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

patent null · Apr 30, 2024

GOMACO Corporation (Petitioner) challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 via Petition, arguing that claims 1-8 are obvious over prior art references CIII and Rio. The Petitioner contends a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these references to improve slipform paver efficiency.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00788

Micron Technology, Inc. filed an IPR challenging Yangtze Memory Technologies Company's 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (10658378). The petition asserts that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references like Toyama and Mushiga.

patent instituted · Apr 30, 2024

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

GOMACO Corporation successfully challenged seven claims of the '723 patent in a PGR proceeding, arguing they lack written description support and are obvious. The Board instituted review on all grounds, finding the patent subject to AIA rules despite its age.