Short Summary
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00839, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board sent an email titled “Director Review Request” to counsel for both parties, indicating that the patent owner, Lumenco, LLC, has sought a Director Review of the case. The petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al., is authorized to submit a response limited to the issues raised in the Director Review request, capped at 15 pages and due within five business days, with no new evidence allowed. The Board will determine whether to grant or deny the Director Review, and parties will be notified of the outcome.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. vs Lumenco, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Fifth Third Bank, National AssociationvsUnited Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly filed a motion to stay all deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to file dismissal papers.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
Penumbra, Inc.vsRapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,856,414. The challenger argues that the patent’s claims are obvious in view of earlier Wi‑Fi technologies disclosed in Chincholi, Riggert, and Choi. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claims.
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.