Short Summary
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Detailed Summary
This document is a Notice of Decisions on Institution issued by the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce. It reviews multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board denied institution for proceedings IPR2026-00098, IPR2026-00107, IPR2026-00108, and IPR2026-00105 because the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. Conversely, institution was granted in other listed proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsara Inc. vs Motive Technologies, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Netlist has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-01431 and the PTAB has emailed both parties with strict response limits and a five‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,530,654 and jointly requested that the settlement agreement be kept confidential, while MWE moved to withdraw from the proceeding.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
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.