Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 18 · 522 total
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Petitioner Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's '664 Patent, asserting that all claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references in RF ablation technology. The challenge rests entirely on statutory grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103, utilizing multiple prior art patents related to neurotomy devices.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle claims at the PTAB, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner argues that combining multiple prior art references—including Racz, Fitz, and Lee—would have motivated a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art to create the claimed device.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical challenged Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent, arguing that the claimed deployable filament features are obvious.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical filed a Petition challenging Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent ('782 Patent). The central argument is that the claimed device is obvious because it merely combines conventional features from prior art references like Racz, Fitz, and Lee. This challenges 27 claims related to advanced medical ablation technology.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical regarding a neurotomy system patent (10925664). The Board found reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds, targeting claims 1-29.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical, LLC's '688 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) using prior art combinations like Racz and Lee.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Stratus Medical's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed RF neurotomy features could be achieved by combining existing prior art references.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over Racz, Fitz, and Lee based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted Petitioner's broad definition of 'thermal ablation systems,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow focus on 'RF neurotomy.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1-17 and 48-52 are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Racz, Fitz, Lee) was an obvious modification to create functional RF neurotomy devices.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board adopted the Petitioner's broad definition of POSA in the field of thermal ablation systems.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Watson Guide IP’s dental guide patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
smaXtec Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge a key patent held by ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC at the PTAB. The petition asserts seven grounds of invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the IPR, and the parties seek confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,506,554 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela LLC filed a Petition challenging 22 claims of patent 8858534 related to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT). The petitioners assert grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on combinations of prior art references, including Risk, Watson, Hunt, Lina, and Dolliver. The petition was successfully instituted by the Board.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela LLC has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging key patents related to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) systems held by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all ten challenged claims related to vascular occlusion catheters are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on various combinations of prior art references, primarily under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness).
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Chiaro Technology's breast pump patent (11413380) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition in another proceeding.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
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.