Industrial Machinery — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Waldner and Dynatek, along with others like Auld and McIver, rendered the claimed aggregate transferring apparatus predictable engineering.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s 9,827,568 patent covering a gyratory crusher shaft sleeve, arguing that all ten claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition stresses that the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Sandvik's gyratory crusher patent (11,014,090 B2), setting the stage for a complex obviousness trial involving three prior art references.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,014,090 B2 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the specific structural limitations claimed by the patent.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Delta Power Equipment, Lowe’s and Home Depot seek rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their cutting‑machine blade‑guard patent, arguing the Board misread the Gass prior art and that claims 1,2,5,9 are obvious.
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.