patent all challenged claims unpatentable

MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. BuzzBallz, LLC

PGR2024-00035

MPL Brands NV successfully convinced the PTAB that all 20 claimed claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found obviousness over multiple prior art references, including PCAN, Metzger, and Kaminski, in a final decision.

Jurisdiction

US PTAB

Case Number

PGR2024-00035

Filing Date

6 July 2024

Outcome

all challenged claims unpatentable

Jurisdiction

US PTAB

Case Number

PGR2024-00035

Filing Date

6 July 2024

Outcome

all challenged claims unpatentable

Status

Cause of Action

patent

Executive Summary

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MPL Brands NV, Inc. vs BuzzBallz, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00582

Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation

Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent covering haptic feedback systems. The Board found sufficient persuasive evidence that Valve could prevail on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Pratt and Ku.

patentIPR2024-00463

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims in the dermatological treatment patent, primarily based on anticipation by reference Mehta. The Board rejected arguments for discretionary denial and proceeded with the IPR.

patentIPR2025-01598

Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.

patentIPR2024-00692

2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co.vsThe Ridge Wallet LLC

Mountain Voyage Co. challenges The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents (10791808) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner presents multiple combinations of prior art, including Kane in view of Beckley, Pelz, and Matthews, to demonstrate the claimed features are predictable.

patentIPR2024-01345

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNL Giken Inc.

Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.

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

Twitter LinkedIn

Citation

[{"case": "Okajima v. Bourdeau", "citation": "261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)"}, {"case": "Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.", "citation": "868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)"}, {"case": "Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.", "citation": "200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)"}, {"case": "Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar", "citation": "935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)"}, {"case": "Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc.", "citation": "122 F.3d 1456, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997)"}, {"case": "David’s Bridal, Inc. v. Jenny Yoo Collection", "citation": "18 PGR2016-00041, Paper 11,12 15 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2017)"}, "In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013)", "LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc)", "Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am., 869 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2017)", "Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010)", "In re Salmon, 705 F.2d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1983)", "Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022)", "Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018)", "Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2022)", "Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2016-00871, Paper 8, 20 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2016)", {"case": "AQ Textiles, LLC v. Arun Agarwal", "proceeding": "PGR2017-00042"}, {"case": "Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Teq AG", "proceeding": "PGR2021-00085"}, {"case": "Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enters., LLC", "proceeding": "PGR2016-00030"}, {"case": "Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Biomed. Enters. Inc.", "proceeding": "IPR2015-00786"}, {"case": "China Lithium Battery Tech. Co. v. Contemp. Amperex Tech. Co.", "proceeding": "PGR2022-00008"}, {"case": "Albany Int’l Corp. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.", "proceeding": "PGR2021-00019"}, {"case": "United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc.", "citation": "2023 WL 8794633"}, {"case": "Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek", "court": "Fed. Cir.", "year": 2015}, {"case": "KSR Int’l Co.", "court": "U.S. Supreme Court", "year": 2007}, {"case": "Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc.", "court": null, "year": null}]

MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. BuzzBallz, LLC

Executive Summary

Practitioner Note

Related Cases

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Facing a similar patent matter?

Share

Citation