Personal care products — US PTAB Patent Cases
8 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 8 total
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant stick patent is obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 15’s hardness test and failed to show a motivation to combine disparate prior art.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G’s request to overturn the PTAB’s findings that claim 8 of the ’706 deodorant‑stick patent is obvious. The petitioner argues the Board correctly applied the ASTM D‑1321 standard and rejected P&G’s RPI arguments.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch argues that the PTAB correctly rejected P&G’s attempts to reinterpret claim language and that the challenged deodorant stick claims are obvious over prior art. The petition also rebuts P&G’s RPI argument, maintaining that Dr. Squatch was the sole real party in interest.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
P&G filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn an IPR finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant patent was obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 8’s hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a real‑party‑in‑interest defect.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G's deodorant stick patent, arguing the claims are obvious over known formulations and that P&G's RPI arguments fail. The Board’s prior findings support the petitioner's position, and the request for director review should be denied.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its aluminum‑free deodorant patent are obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted the hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a procedural defect regarding real‑party identification.
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.