Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Stratasys, Inc. et al.

IPR2025-00532

An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00532
Decision Date
2 May 2025
Filing Date
2 May 2025

Detailed Summary

The Director of the PTAB sent a notice to counsel indicating that the patent owner, Stratasys, Inc., has submitted a Director Review request in IPR2025-00532 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381. The petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology, is authorized to file a response limited to the issues raised, no longer than 15 pages, and must not introduce new evidence. The response must be filed electronically in P‑TACTS with a prescribed title within five business days, and no additional briefing will be allowed pending the Director’s decision.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. vs Stratasys, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00171

Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC

Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. 9,082,239 vehicle‑infotainment patent, asserting that all 35 claims are obvious over existing vehicle‑technology disclosures.

patentIPR2025-00457

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company et al.

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cerence’s U.S. Patent 7,680,334 covering handwriting‑recognition methods. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.

patentIPR2025-01362

Ciena CorporationvsK.Mizra LLC

Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.

patentIPR2025-00190

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.

patentIPR2025-00712

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.

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