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
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsIarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against U.S. Patent No. 8,934,359 in a Passive Optical Networks (PON) dispute. The petition asserts that combining ITU-T G.984.3 and Khermosh discloses all claimed method elements related to burst overhead management.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Aerin Medical Inc.vsNeurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of several IPR petitions, meaning no trials will proceed for these challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that SK Hynix’s IPR against Netlist’s ’537 patent succeeded; all challenged claims were found obvious over Amidi and Klein references.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.
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.