Short Summary
Pascal Technologies opposes the patent owner's request for director review, arguing the deposition dispute is moot and that the cited references are printed publications supporting the institution of inter partes review.
Detailed Summary
In an authorized response to the patent owner's request for director review, Pascal Technologies contends that the alleged deposition dispute is both moot and unsupported, emphasizing that its expert, Dr. Dincă, is available for a remote deposition and can appear in the United States if directed. The petitioner further argues that the Board correctly found a reasonable likelihood that the prior‑art references Xie, Mañosa, Patel, and Tamarit qualify as printed publications, satisfying the evidentiary threshold for instituting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,230,656. Consequently, Pascal seeks affirmation of the institution decision and denial of the director review request.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pascal Technologies vs Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al.vsEssity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a post‑institution response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the Kelly reference fails to disclose claim limitations and that Walker is not prior art because the inventors conceived and diligently reduced the invention before Walker’s filing date.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SEvsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
Kahoot! AS et al.vsinterstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.