Judge Profile

Michael A. Valek

41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

41 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2

patent instituted · May 31, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· PGR2024-00030

Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.

patent denied · May 31, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-00930

The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Oura Health because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.

patent denied · May 31, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-00929

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.

patent instituted · May 31, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-00928

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 31, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· PGR2024-00030

Samsung Electronics challenged Oura Health's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, arguing obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB found the vast majority of the grounds unpersuasive, but ultimately cancelled two dependent claims (17 and 18) under § 112(d).

patent final · May 31, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-00928

The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.

patent instituted · May 4, 2024

TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2024-00770

TikTok Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cellspin Soft, Inc.'s patent covering Bluetooth data transfer and content publishing. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references.

patent instituted · May 4, 2024

TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2024-00769

TikTok and its affiliates successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Cellspin Soft regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over multiple prior art references, including Singh129/Singh906 and Kahn/Bluetooth.

patent instituted · May 4, 2024

TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2024-00768

TikTok Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Cellspin Soft, Inc., leading to a decision that reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was established for claims 1-10 over Singh129 and Singh906. The Board found that Petitioner adequately demonstrated material error in prior art consideration during prosecution regarding Ground 2.

patent instituted · May 4, 2024

TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2024-00767

TikTok Inc.'s challenge to Cellspin Soft's patent was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The Board focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) over prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications. This decision sets up trial proceedings to determine if the combination of existing technologies renders the patent claims invalid.

patent denied · Feb 12, 2024

Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00233

The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →