US PTAB IP Litigation

Capital One, National Association v.--

· IPR2024-00878

Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

In its preliminary reply, the patent owner defends the 8,823,515 patent against smaXtec's IPR petition by asserting that the Trevarthen reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure satisfies the ‘implanted’ claim language.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

smaXtec challenges ST Reproductive Technologies’ animal‑implant RFID patent, arguing the prior art was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure anticipates the claimed implanted device elements.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

patent null · Feb 5, 2024

The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.

Capital One, National Association v.--

· IPR2024-00878

Capital One has initiated an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent claims related to Applet/Code Delivery Architecture under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious combinations of prior art references like Fowlow and Kimera.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.

patent null · Feb 5, 2024

ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.

· IPR2024-00872

ENS Labs Ltd. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Unstoppable Domains Inc.'s patent covering Domain Name Resolution (ENS) methods. The petitioner argues that the core claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references related to blockchain functionality.

Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation

· IPR2024-00850

Exotec and other petitioners have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Opex Corporation's '632 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge centers on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou to demonstrate predictable improvements in warehouse efficiency.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

patent null · Feb 5, 2024

Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

· IPR2024-00837

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against a patent covering animal management systems using RFID technology. The Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references, including Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao, provided sufficient motivation to combine elements of the challenged claims.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

The PTAB has instituted an IPR proceeding challenging the validity of claims in patent 9844206, focusing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by presenting strong arguments regarding prior art combination and claim construction.

ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.

· IPR2024-00872

ENS Labs Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Unstoppable Domains Inc. was denied by the PTAB, primarily because the petitioner failed to prove that key prior art documentation qualified as publicly accessible under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board found the evidence of public accessibility insufficient to support the obviousness grounds asserted across multiple claims.

Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation

· IPR2024-00850

Exotec Product France SAS and co-petitioner successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Opex Corporation's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou in the field of Automated Warehouse Robotics.

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. successfully instituted the IPR against Lumenco, LLC regarding security device patents related to anti-counterfeiting micro mirrors. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims over combinations of prior art references (Fuhse847 and Rich).

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

· IPR2024-00837

The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 5, 2024

Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC

· IPR2024-00837

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Lumenco's anti-counterfeiting patent (10317691), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

patent final · Feb 5, 2024

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.

smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.