Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 18 · 522 total
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director denied institution of iRhythm's IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitor patent. The patent owner’s response argues the denial was proper, citing lack of evidence and procedural compliance.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in its IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00378 and related cases, keeping Welch Allyn's patent intact. The decision rests on the Board's discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm challenges the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of five IPR petitions on the ground that a newly issued ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively. The company argues the rule conflicts with precedent and statutory limits, and would burden the PTAB and stifle innovation.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has requested Director Review of Welch Allyn’s patent 8,214,007 in IPR2025-00377. The patent owner may file a brief response limited to the raised issues within five days, with no new evidence allowed.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of five IPR petitions, arguing the new ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively and violates precedent. The petitioner contends the rule would burden the PTAB and harm patent quality.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its five IPR petitions, arguing the new “settled expectations” rule is retroactive and conflicts with Board precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm's request to overturn the PTAB Director's denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the denial was based on a holistic review and that the petition lacked evidence and new factual support.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
Welch Allyn’s patent survived a director’s discretionary denial after iRhythm’s request for review was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s holistic assessment and found no procedural violations.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00374, leaving the denial of institution in place.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the institution denials in place.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Hyperice’s percussive massage patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Welch Allyn’s 9,155,484 wearable ECG sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Matsumura, Jensen and Ozguz. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, arguing obviousness over Jensen, Matsumura and Kroll. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.
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.