Short Summary
Vicor Corporation filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied its institution petition in IPR2024-00715, arguing the Board should have considered the patent owner's expert testimony despite lacking documentary support.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00715, Vicor Corporation challenged the USPTO's decision to deny institution of its petition against Delta Electronics' U.S. Patent No. 10,877,534. The petitioner contends that the Board failed to properly apply 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) by not crediting the patent owner's expert testimony, which, although unsupported by documentary evidence, directly addresses a new issue contrary to the prior art. Vicor seeks Director Review, asserting that the Board should defer fact‑finding to trial when faced with a "battle of the experts" and that the denial was procedurally improper. An identical request has been filed in a related IPR (IPR2024-00706).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Vicor Corporation vs Delta Electronics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company
Samsung has submitted Director Review requests for three IPRs challenging Cerence’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to a 15‑page brief with no new evidence.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al.vsFienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation over OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for multiple IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., allowing the merits phase to proceed.
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.