Grace Karaffa
71 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
71 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB previously denied institution of IPR against Bunge Loders Croklaan USA regarding a vegetable fat composition patent. The Board found that Cargill’s arguments relied on hindsight bias, specifically in selecting prior art examples to meet claimed triglyceride ranges.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Cargill against Bunge Loders Croklaan regarding vegetable fat composition claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, specifically rejecting arguments based on hindsight bias when converting prior art data.
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.
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.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The PTAB issued an order extending by 30 days the deadline to issue a decision on remand in the IPR between Kohler and Delta Faucet over U.S. Patent 10,393,363. The extension is justified by the volume of grounds and claims raised in the parties' briefs.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s IPR challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected; the Board found no unpatentable claims after concluding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments were unsupported.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
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.