Annette R. Reimers
24 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
24 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
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 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.
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).
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 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 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 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.
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.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.
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.