Executive Summary
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.
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
Apple Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLCvsFacet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global's challenge to Facet Technology Corp.'s road sign recognition patent failed before the PTAB, upholding claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9335255. The Board found insufficient evidence that combining prior art references would render the claimed method obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that Visa, Inc.'s claims were likely obvious over prior art references including Oborne and Neafsey. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'scan,' leading to the institution of 17 claims under Section 103.
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge a patent from Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board utilized its discretion to deny institution because this petition was ranked last among seven parallel challenges.
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.