Biomedical Devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
7 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 7 total
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.
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.
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.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy patent (10736688). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
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.
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.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
ViVitro Labs Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC's patent (9237935). The petitioner asserts that the claimed heart valve testing system is anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Xi and Goldstein.
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.