Cleaning apparatus — US PTAB Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's vacuum cleaner patents in PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petition asserts that existing technology renders every claim predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,910,984 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims covering handheld vacuum cleaners are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combining various prior art references, including Dyson's own publications and patents.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully had its patent (No. 11,389,038 B2) instituted in an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc., overcoming initial challenges regarding obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Dyson across all asserted claims (1-15), moving the dispute toward trial.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron Intellectual Property's vacuum cleaner patent (US 10,117,550). The petition asserted grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenged a patent covering vacuum cleaner apparatus, arguing that all 15 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies heavily on combining well-known configurations from references like Butler, Peng, and Lehmann to demonstrate predictable results in cleaning device design.
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.