Executive Summary
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art, specifically targeting anti-counterfeiting micro mirror technology. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 were deemed obvious based on the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich.
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
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Biofrontera AG et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging 51 claims of Nokia's U.S. Patent No. 7,280,599. The core dispute centers on whether the patent claims related to sub-pixel interpolation in video compression are obvious over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto.
Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsLiTL LLC
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.
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.