Executive Summary
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Proxense, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHarbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
Arm LimitedvsICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al.vsMicrochip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's patent (9471074) in an IPR, arguing obviousness over Al-Shyoukh in view of Ivanov and Stanescu. The PTAB institution decision granted the petition, proceeding to trial on 18 claims.
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent (9,116,546), asserting that the haptic feedback claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on Claim 1 based on Rosenberg.
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.