Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 18 · 522 total
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of eleven claims of Spinelogik's spinal fusion patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Blain, Bray, and Steffee references.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully navigated the PTAB institution phase against Spinelogik regarding spinal fusion implants. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over Moskowitz and Steffee for several key claims.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,980,998, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final decision.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and CardiacSense have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a request to waive the 30‑day deadline for a Director Review in its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices. The Board has set a five‑day window for the patent owner to respond, limiting the reply to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience has petitioned the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB Director has opened a sua sponte review to reconsider institution decisions in seven IPRs involving TikTok and diabetes‑monitoring patents after rejecting the Patent Owner’s RPI and sovereign‑person arguments.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00891 covering U.S. Patent No. 11,020,031. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits. The parties also seek termination of related IPRs and a district‑court case.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00890 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue good cause for termination.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,020,031 B1. The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom jointly filed a request to have their settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Petitioner Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenges DexCom's '031 patent claims 23-46 in an IPR proceeding. The challenge asserts that the core inventive feature—using a priori information regarding sensor drift profiles—is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Zhang and Shin.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully secured institutional status in an IPR against DexCom, Inc., regarding continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art references anticipate or render obvious key claims related to transcutaneous sensors and drift profiles.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against DexCom, Inc.'s glucose monitoring patent (11020031). The Board found sufficient evidence for trial on 22 claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art from Zhang and Shin.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
ThermiGen settled its patent infringement lawsuit with Viveve Medical, securing a non‑exclusive license and agreeing to pay royalties. The settlement resolves the 2016 litigation and allows Thermi to continue developing its temperature‑controlled RF platforms for women's intimate health.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
BTL Industries successfully petitioned to challenge InMode Ltd.'s patent on urogenital tissue tightening methods. The PTAB found compelling merits in the petition, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
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.