Anker Innovations Limited v. Powermat Technologies Ltd.

IPR2024-00994

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00994
Judge(s)
KEN B. BARRETT, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, RYAN H. FLAX
Decision Date
6 May 2024

Detailed Summary

The Board concluded that the challenged claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art, including Baarman392, Partovi, Onishi, and Flowerdew. The key finding was that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine general teachings—such as alignment from Flowerdew applied to Onishi's inductively coupled system—to achieve optimization. Furthermore, the Board adopted a narrow construction for 'substantially different,' limiting it to frequencies within near-linear regions of the frequency-amplitude graph.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Anker Innovations Limited vs Powermat Technologies Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00505

CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al.vsIpsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.

CSPC Pharmaceutical Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s U.S. Patent 11,344,552 covering a liposomal irinotecan regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-00950

Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the IPR.

patentIPR2025-00966

Oracle CorporationvsVirtaMove, Corp.

Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations. The petition relies on prior‑art references that allegedly anticipate every claim element.

patentIPR2026-00101

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.

patentIPR2025-00994

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.

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