Short Summary
Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.
Detailed Summary
In an authorized response to the Director’s review request, Tessell, Inc. defends the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2025-00298 against Nutanix, Inc.’s ’818 patent covering database provisioning in a hyperconverged infrastructure. The petitioner argues that the alleged unfair dealing claim is baseless because the inventors departed Nutanix before the continuation was filed and the patent’s claims were broadened to remove the hyperconverged limitation. It further emphasizes that the patent’s recent issuance creates settled expectations favoring institution, and contends that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is unwarranted given the examiner’s material error and the extensive prior‑art references.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tessell, Inc. vs Nutanix, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TikTok Inc. et al.vsNTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.
Porta SophiavsEllis, Greg
Porta Sophia petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,235,110 covering a vaporizer device for psychedelic compounds, asserting that the device, formulations, and isotopomer claims are fully anticipated or obvious by extensive prior‑art references.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies' e‑commerce server patent, challenging 19 claims as obvious over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia. The petition argues a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary standards.
Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
Pinterest, Inc.vsOpenTV, Inc. et al.
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
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.