Executive Summary
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation et al. vs Lemko Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully initiated an IPR against Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.'s microbial testing patent (8822143). The Board adopted a narrow definition of 'validated' as merely determining a sample tests negative using the detection assay.
Anker Innovations LimitedvsPowermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
The Integration Group of America, Inc.vsSitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al.vsSandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Sandvik's gyratory crusher patent (11,014,090 B2), setting the stage for a complex obviousness trial involving three prior art references.
Exotec Product France SAS et al.vsOpex Corporation
Exotec Product France SAS and co-petitioner successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Opex Corporation's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou in the field of Automated Warehouse Robotics.
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.