Robotics — US PTAB Patent Cases
12 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 12 total
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,274,325 covering robotic mapping and navigation. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 18 claims.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.
Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' 11,880,207 patent covering autonomous pool cleaning robots. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of fifteen claims.
Wybotics Inc. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2007 Chinese filing and obvious over multiple U.S. robot‑cleaner references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 1‑3.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' patent for an autonomous pool‑cleaning robot, asserting that the invention is anticipated by a Chinese robot patent and obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all five claims.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate key claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning robot patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier Chinese and U.S. robotic cleaning disclosures. The petition targets claims 1‑8, 11‑14, and 19 and seeks an IPR institution.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaner patent, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over a combination of existing underwater cleaning robots and lack written‑description support for key controller features.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to cancel all five claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' autonomous pool‑cleaner patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and lack of written description for key limitations.
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.