Short Summary
Vicor Corporation's IPR petition against Delta Electronics was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness. The Board cited insufficient support for combining prior art references and noted that the petitioner employed impermissible hindsight.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution in this Inter Partes Review (IPR), ruling against Vicor Corporation's challenges to Delta Electronics, Inc.'s patent. The Petitioner sought to invalidate claims 13-19 based on anticipation and obviousness over various prior art references, including Vinciarelli-218, Park4, and Vinciarelli-664. However, the Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing because it employed impermissible hindsight when combining prior art (e.g., regarding heat dissipation issues) and did not adequately map specific claim limitations onto the disclosures. Furthermore, the Board noted that CN972 provided support for certain pin configurations, impacting the priority date analysis against Vinciarelli-664.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Vicor Corporation vs Delta Electronics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
VusionGroup SA et al.vsHanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.
RingConn LLCvsOuraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 1‑18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over Schröder, Niwa, Mestas and Yuen.
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.