Short Summary
Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Detailed Summary
In this IPR proceeding, Avation Medical challenged 10 claims of EMKinetics' patent (9002477) related to Nerve Stimulation Therapy. Petitioner argued anticipation under 102(b) using Svihra and obviousness under 103 using combinations of Mann, DiLorenzo, Gerber, and Bourget. The Board found that the prior art sufficiently disclosed limitations for Claim 1, and agreed that the asserted combinations rendered claims 1-10 obvious over Amarenco in combination with secondary references. Given the petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability, the proceeding was instituted.
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
NJOY, Inc.vsJUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's patent (RE49,114) in a PTAB Petition based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references 'Cho' and 'Nielsen' disclose the core structural elements of e-cigarette cartridges. This challenge targets numerous claims related to wicking systems and atomization chambers.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for a review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving DISH Technologies’ patent 10,469,554. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Red Hat, Inc.vsCompetitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.
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.