James A. Tartal
48 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
48 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Watson Guide IP regarding dental prosthesis claims under 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness, despite disputes over claim language and prior art interpretation.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Solaris against Masaba's aggregate handling patent (11780689), finding a reasonable likelihood that key claims are obvious over Waldner and Dynatek.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
The PTAB found that all challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Llop '126 and Sichuan. The Board determined there was a clear motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Waldner and Dynatek, along with others like Auld and McIver, rendered the claimed aggregate transferring apparatus predictable engineering.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja's IPR challenge against Dyson regarding hair styling attachments was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim based on obviousness over prior art references.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB against Danco, Inc., leading to the institution of trial on all 14 claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the patent's features were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using various prior art references. This decision significantly advances Fluidmaster’s challenge in related district court litigation.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Danco's patent (9103105) regarding toilet fill valves. The Board granted institution on multiple grounds, setting the stage for a full trial to determine if the claims are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Danco's patent, challenging 20 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'integrally molded with,' defining it as being formed as a single structure.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB panel majority found that the cited prior art references teach or suggest all limitations of claims 1-14, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically construed key terms like 'overflow tube' and 'Flow Limitations' to support Petitioner’s reading, though ultimately found the overflow tube limitation was limiting in scope.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB found 16 claims unpatentable over prior art references, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board upheld its construction of 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
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.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
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.