Annette R. Reimers
33 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
33 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to institution on all 10 challenged claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of 'loader support,' finding that prior art supports anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals because the petition failed to provide adequate claim construction rationale. The Board found that Petitioner’s proposed constructions for 'risk indices' were too ambiguous and insufficiently supported by prior art.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to review claims in Progenics' medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide a clear, single claim construction for key terms like 'risk map.'
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to institute IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals regarding a medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to properly construe the key term 'risk map,' proposing multiple ambiguous definitions without adequate justification.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged Neurelis, Inc.'s patent claims covering nasal drug delivery formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged claims 1-18 of Neurelis, Inc.'s patent under grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (102). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the invention is unpatentable, based on combining prior art references Gwozdz and Meezan.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Neurelis, Inc.'s nasal drug formulations patent (8895546) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB institution decision allows Padagis to proceed with the unpatentability arguments against all 22 claims.
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047 for a hat holder system. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, including anticipation by KR ’458.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding that the asserted claims were not obvious or anticipated by the prior art. The Board specifically rejected arguments linking Cantor to spatial analysis in tissue sections.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's VAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over multiple prior art references.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,980,998, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final decision.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin International successfully navigated the initial stages of its IPR challenge against Cardiacsense LTD's '998 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds. The Board found that certain claims were not entitled to an earlier effective filing date due to insufficient written description support for a compass feature in prior applications.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading the PTAB to institute trial on all 28 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds using prior art references KR996, Bares, and Beltrami.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent (9321386). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be unpatentable based on prior art combinations.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully navigated the institution decision process against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to a trial on key claims. The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently distinct from previous PTO examinations and granted review under § 325(d).
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute trial against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent claims related to genomic sequencing and analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1, allowing the IPR to proceed despite extensive prior art challenges under Sections 102 and 103.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing successfully convinced the PTAB that all 19 claims of patent 11736855 were unpatentable. The Board found the claims invalid under both obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and various indefiniteness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.