Intel Corporation v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

IPR2025-00794

The Director denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00794, leaving the patent challenge uninstated.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00794
Filing Date
28 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01423

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd.vs--

Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.

patentIPR2024-00776

Microsoft CorporationvsProxense, LLC

Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging 16 claims of Proxense, LLC's patent related to biometric authentication for financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Burger and Robinson. This marks a key procedural step in the ongoing dispute between the parties.

patentIPR2025-01020

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 ‘969 Patent covering an intraoral device with mesh. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness of the claims based on earlier dental mouthpiece patents.

patentIPR2025-00755

USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC

USAA has filed an IPR petition challenging PACid’s ’530 patent on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Immega, Day, Tomko, Mardikar‑318, Chhabra and Duffy prior art. The petition argues for institution and cites Fintiv factors.

patentIPR2024-01366

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSecure Wi-Fi LLC

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied the rescinded Vidal memo retroactively. The petitioner alleges abuse of discretion and due‑process violations, arguing the Board’s weighting of Fintiv factors was arbitrary.

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