Mitchell G. Weatherly
77 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
77 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR against Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (9527094) for obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 7 based on Sevy, leading to trial institution.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned to challenge claims of Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (10583449) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International Corp. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Voith Patent GmbH regarding patent number 11261566, challenging all 15 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's arguments that combinations of prior art references render the claimed features predictable in textile manufacturing.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard's IPR challenge to Medline Industries' patent was terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the Board granting a joint motion to dismiss before instituting the trial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Tire Stickers LLC's patent (11,124,027 B2) regarding display assemblies for tires. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple grounds of obviousness over several prior art references.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully had its IPR institution decision upheld, advancing the case against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent 9021112. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent (10924573) covering Content Delivery Networks. The Board instituted the case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google could prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB denied SAP's request to institute IPR against Cyandia's patent (8751948), citing copending district court litigation in Texas. The Board determined the overlapping issues made IPR redundant.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla Inc.'s petition against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that the patent claims are unpatentable as obvious. The Board focused on how prior art references could combine to render independent claims obvious, specifically regarding charging system features.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla successfully challenged Charge Fusion Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, rendering numerous independent and dependent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This outcome significantly weakens the asserted patent portfolio for Charge Fusion.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The Board issued key claim constructions regarding 'lifter' and 'gas pressure system,' paving the way for trial.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10478954 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board's decision was supported by preliminary claim construction findings that favored the Petitioner’s argument regarding design motivation and prior art combination.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging all 30 claims of Patent No. 11241776. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools regarding fastener driving tools. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on multiple prior art references, despite complex claim construction arguments.
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.