Agricultural machinery — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.