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
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The Director Review denied institution of two IPRs against Headwater Research, finding that discretionary factors—particularly the timing of a parallel proceeding—outweighed the petitioner's merits. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) and Headwater Research presented opposing arguments on the strength of the petition and the proper weighing of Fintiv factors.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.vsSpruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd.vsDermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals successfully challenged Dermavant Sciences' patent claims in the PTAB, leading to institution of the case. The Board found sufficient grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically regarding psoriasis treatment methods. This decision significantly strengthens Encube's position by validating their prior art arguments against the '088 patent.
Cruzr Saddles LLCvsTethrd LLC
Cruzr Saddles LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tethrd's saddle‑hunting rope‑splice patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on publicly available YouTube videos and forum posts. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date, arguing a break in continuity.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.
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.