Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.

IPR2025-00632

The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00632
Judge(s)
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, KEVIN W. CHERRY, BRIAN D. RANGE
Decision Date
21 February 2025

Detailed Summary

Following a sua sponte review and subsequent remand by the Director, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reinstituted the Inter Partes Review (IPR) in favor of Revvo Technologies, Inc. The Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability for numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,835,421 B2. Crucially, the Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument regarding Rule 104(b)(3), finding that Petitioner’s explanation—that it proposes broader interpretations because the District Court may decline to adopt narrow ones—was sufficient under the Director's exemplary logic.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Revvo Technologies, Inc. vs Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentPGR2025-00063

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘299 patent was decided with all challenged claims (7, 10‑14) found unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.

patentIPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.

Nutanix filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell. The owner contends the Director properly exercised discretion, that assignor estoppel does not apply, and that no right to institution exists.

patentIPR2024-00577

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company

The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.

patentIPR2026-00056

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Guides Inc.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 10,165,324. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that those references were never considered during prosecution.

patentIPR2025-00728

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ’291 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now under review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call