Biomedical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc.'s IPR challenge against DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for obviousness over various prior art combinations in the field of biomedical devices and polymer fibers.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO LABS INC. successfully achieved institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Patent No. 9237935, challenging claims related to prosthetic heart valve testing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success over Dynatek regarding certain limitations, despite preliminary rejections on other grounds.
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.