Short Summary
Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an institution decision in favor of Avation Medical, Inc., allowing its Inter Partes Review (IPR) against EMKinetics, Inc. to proceed regarding claims 1-13 of patent 11224742. The Petitioner argued that the claims were obvious over combinations of prior art, including Svihra and Mann. Although Patent Owner sought discretionary denial under § 325(d), the Board found that Avation successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability by showing that skilled artisans could modify existing methods to target specific nerve branches, which was deemed an obvious design choice.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Avation Medical, Inc. vs EMKinetics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsDialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim constructions in the district court breach Revvo precedent and invalidate the petitions.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision Inc. challenges GoPro's patent on grounds of obviousness, arguing that existing prior art references render the stabilization claims predictable. Petitioner asserts that combining techniques from Zhou, Kwatra, and Shi provides a reasonable expectation of success for improving video stabilization accuracy. This challenge targets 20 claims related to imaging and video processing.
Univacco Technology Inc.vsLEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
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.