Meredith C. Petravick
66 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
66 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V.'s patent, arguing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over Beel and Dinka for at least one claim, leading to a trial date.
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.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.
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.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems' IPR petition against PayRange LLC was denied, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 7 and 11 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments combining prior art references (Low, Arora, Freeny, Casey) to establish obviousness.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned against Barco N.V.'s patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted trial on all 18 claims based on the combination of Beel and Christison prior art references.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,208,878, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-10 of U.S. Well Services' patent '878, focusing on hydraulic fracturing systems and power distribution. The Board found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a rational basis for combining multiple prior art references to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Well Services' smart hydraulic fracturing patent, leading to institution for all 19 claims. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references like Norris disclose key elements of the system.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging claims in a seed carrier patent (9745123). The Patent Owner successfully demonstrated that their prototype predated the prior art references cited by the Petitioner.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
The PTAB denied Par-Kan Company's IPR against Unverferth Mfg. Co.'s patent 8967940, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references like Morris and Hiniker Webpage.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
BTL Industries successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against InMode Ltd.'s medical device patent (8961511). The Board adopted a specialized skill level for the POSA and preliminarily constructed key terms related to RF energy application in gynecological tissue.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all 58 claims of the patent owner's application. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references (Edwards, Mosher, Ingle, Ollivier).
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Barco N.V., challenging patent 11422951 on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Uchida and Grimshaw, leading to the continuation of the dispute.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V., challenging nine claims of patent 10762002 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail, citing combinations of prior art references like Kaplan and Ahmed to establish unpatentability.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Yealink against Barco, challenging 5 claims related to electronic tools for meetings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the combination of prior art references Kaplan and Mardiks.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established a motivation to combine prior art elements, particularly regarding local user control over shared content.
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.