Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
376 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 13 · 376 total
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences filed a motion to dismiss an inter partes review of its aortic valve patent, arguing the case is pre‑institution and barred by a prior infringement lawsuit. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding without a decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint PTAB request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b) and related regulations.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing competitive harm if disclosed. The Board has yet to rule on the request.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order compelling Cala Health and EMKinetics to file a true copy of their settlement agreement before the joint motion to dismiss can be acted upon, emphasizing compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). A dissenting judge argues the rule does not apply pre‑institution.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges EMKinetics' patent on tremor treatment using electrical stimulation, arguing that prior art references Gesotti and Burnett render all claims obvious or anticipated. The petitioner details how these older devices satisfy every limitation of the claimed apparatus and method for treating neurological conditions like tremor.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges the validity of EMKinetics' '669 patent by asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Gesotti and Burnett. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology for tremor treatment is already disclosed in the prior art, presenting multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam, LLC have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,916,483. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of further contest.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,916,483, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT, Inc. filed a Petition challenging all 20 claims of Medtronic's '483 Patent based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Watson and Schwartz—render the implantable drug delivery device unpatentable.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00853 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 seek to end the proceeding.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
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.