Executive 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.
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
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon successfully challenged the '904 patent, leading to its institution after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The challenge focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding automated profile collection and data targeting methods.
Microsoft CorporationvsSterling Computers Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Board instituted the IPR petition against Patent No. 10589225, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The institution decision addressed complex issues regarding real party in interest and written description support for genus claims related to flue gas treatment.
Intel Corporation et al.vsCollision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
DELL INC. et al.vsAX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. petitioned the PTAB challenging AX Wireless LLC's patent (11212146) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are rendered obvious by either a single prior art reference (Yu) or a combination of Hansen and WWiSE.
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.