Meredith C. Petravick
66 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
66 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all five challenged claims unpatentable over prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining references like Kaplan/Mardiks and Maeda/Deforche in the field of Audio/Video Conferencing.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that all 46 challenged claims of the '380 patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully argued obviousness (103) over various prior art references, including Chang, Fang, and Yuen, concerning breast pump systems.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear entered a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,869,510.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,808,036 B1. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without deciding the merits.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering patent 9,289,016. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear jointly moved to terminate multiple IPRs after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering SherryWear’s footwear patent (U.S. 10,219,550). The Board cited statutory authority to end the review before any merits were decided.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,295,288. The Board terminated the IPR by joint motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully moved forward in its IPR against SherryWear's '800 patent, with the PTAB instituting the case on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for all six challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of SherryWear's intimate apparel patent (9723878) on grounds of obviousness. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over combinations of prior art like Vidal/Spagna and Handras/Spagna.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
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.'
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Chiaro Technology's breast pump patent (11413380) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition in another proceeding.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
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.