Industrial automation — US PTAB Patent Cases
13 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 13 total
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of SitePro’s ‘184 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling equipment, arguing abstract‑idea ineligibility, obviousness over four prior references, and lack of written‑description support.
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Nicholson Manufacturing has petitioned the PTAB to cancel all 18 claims of BID Group Technologies' AI‑enabled log debarking patent, asserting obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and indefiniteness.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix seeks IPR of SitePro’s 11,726,504 patent covering remote fluid‑handling control, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over Cardamone, Kahn, and SCADA references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s 9,898,014 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, asserting that Kahn and Gutierrez patents anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s ‘403 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s fluid‑handling control patent, asserting that three prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims and that discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for TankLogix against SitePro regarding remote fluid control systems. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, specifically rejecting attempts to equate 'process data' with the claimed 'target value.'
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. challenged SitePro's patent (11726504) via a Petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Cardamone or Kahn under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petitioner also argues for obviousness based on combining prior art with SCADA under § 103.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s patent (9342078) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Almadi, Gutierrez, and SCADA. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are fully disclosed by these references in the field of Industrial Automation.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbra SRL challenged 3U Vision's optical sorting patent (11666947) on grounds of obviousness and indefiniteness, specifically over the prior art reference ElMasry. The PTAB preliminarily agreed that it is more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable, instituting the proceeding for trial phase.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,386,602 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on public‑policy grounds favoring settlement.
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.