Plumbing fixtures — US PTAB Patent Cases
13 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 13 total
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Delta Faucet’s patent on an illuminated faucet system survives the PTAB’s review, with the Board affirming the patentability of claims 10 and 19 over the cited prior art. The Patent Owner’s response urges the Director to deny Kohler’s request for review, emphasizing the conclusory nature of Kohler’s expert testimony.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler seeks reversal of the Board’s non‑obviousness rulings after a Director Review found that Tseng teaches side‑emitting light and Tse teaches translucent material, arguing that multiple claims of the Delta Faucet patent are obvious.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The PTAB issued an order extending by 30 days the deadline to issue a decision on remand in the IPR between Kohler and Delta Faucet over U.S. Patent 10,393,363. The extension is justified by the volume of grounds and claims raised in the parties' briefs.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s final decision that upheld the validity of claims 10 and 19 of its illuminated fixture patent. The petition alleges factual errors and ignored expert admissions, seeking reversal of the Board’s findings.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. challenged Delta Faucet Company's patent via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Tseng and Tse. The petitioner presented multiple grounds based on 103, targeting nearly all claims in the patent.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Delta Faucet Company et al., challenging claims related to illuminated showerheads. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds, advancing the dispute to trial.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 24 claims of the patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a broad construction for key terms like 'outer illumination surface' and 'translucent light pipe,' supporting the finding of obviousness across multiple grounds.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Board found that claims 1, 2, and 9 were unpatentable over prior art references Tseng and Mizuno based on obviousness. The remaining claims (3-8 and 10-24) were deemed patentable.
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.