Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

IPR2025-01127

The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01127
Filing Date
27 June 2025
Outcome
denied

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aerin Medical Inc. vs Neurent Medical Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00975

Innoscience America, Inc. et al.vsInfineon Technologies Austria AG

Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.

patentIPR2024-00480

Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsLiTL LLC

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Dell Technologies Inc., finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Lane and Fujinawa. The Board determined the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any ground, upholding the patent's validity.

patentIPR2024-00537

Microsoft Corporation et al.vsInterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.

The Board issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding priority and found that the specification adequately supported the combination of Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer.

patentIPR2024-00633

Fluidmaster, Inc.vsDanco, Inc. et al.

The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'

patentIPR2024-00356

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.vsSemiconductor Design Technologies, LLC

Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call