Short Summary
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
Detailed Summary
In the IPR proceeding IPR2025-01325 concerning U.S. Patent 8,924,192, petitioner Capital One, N.A. submitted a Request for Director Review accompanied by Exhibit 1057, an email from Andrew Kellogg dated November 13, 2025. Capital One seeks the Board’s authorization to add this exhibit to the record to bolster its case. Patent owner Wapp Tech Corp., through lead counsel Kyle Friesen, does not object to the exhibit’s inclusion but opposes the Director Review request, indicating a procedural dispute over the Board’s discretionary authority. The exchange reflects the parties’ competing positions as the case moves toward a potential Director Review decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Capital One, N.A. et al. vs Wapp Tech Corp. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al.vsAtossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Google LLCvsTJTM Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Court decision.
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.