Short Summary
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
Detailed Summary
In this final written decision, the PTAB determined that the 29 claimed methods for RF neurotomy using deployable filaments were obvious over prior art references (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board found motivation to combine Racz with the teachings of Fitz and Lee, which addressed energy coverage and filament control in thermal ablation systems. Crucially, the Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow the scope of the invention solely to RF neurotomy, thereby broadening the field of inquiry and supporting the finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Avanos Medical, Inc. vs Stratus Medical, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO Director denied Geotab's request for rehearing after a discretionary denial and a denial of institution in IPR2025-00928.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 11,626,904 patent on multi‑antenna transmission, asserting obviousness over Liu, Park, and Ng references.
Wise PLC et al.vs--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,818,449 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
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.