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
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found that combinations of prior art references rendered multiple claims obvious or anticipated.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of three IPRs against Advanced Coding Technologies, leaving the original denials intact.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a confidential settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
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.