Healthcare Technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
10 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 10 total
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully challenged Cleveland Medical Devices' sleep apnea monitoring patent via IPR, arguing the claims were obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals because the petition failed to provide adequate claim construction rationale. The Board found that Petitioner’s proposed constructions for 'risk indices' were too ambiguous and insufficiently supported by prior art.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to review claims in Progenics' medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide a clear, single claim construction for key terms like 'risk map.'
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s glucose monitoring patent (11298056). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) for claims 13 and 29.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging DexCom's remote monitoring patents, arguing that the claims are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed methods and systems unpatentable.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom regarding claims related to remote patient monitoring and glucose management. The PTAB found sufficient evidence that the petitioner met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds (102 and 103).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenged DexCom's CGM patents in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art combining Yarger and Love. The Board granted institution after claim construction, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an IPR challenging DexCom's '204 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that combining existing prior art references, such as Gawlick and Valdes, would have rendered the remote monitoring features of the patented invention obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom for patent infringement related to remote patient monitoring and glucose technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, specifically finding that prior art combinations rendered key claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.