OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v. Hippocratic AI, Inc.

PGR2025-00075

The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00075
Judge(s)
John A. Squires
Decision Date
8 December 2025

Detailed Summary

In PGR2025-00075, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution after reviewing the merits. The petitioner, OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al., was unable to satisfy the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that at least one challenged claim is more likely than not unpatentable. This decision concludes the initial procedural phase of the dispute.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. vs Hippocratic AI, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00289

Google LLCvsAccuSearch Technologies LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentIPR2025-00758

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC

Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2025-00830

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes TSMC’s request for a Director review of an IPR, arguing the request is defective and lacks merit. The response stresses the Director’s proper discretionary denial based on efficiency and lack of substantive evidence.

patentIPR2024-00731

Apple Inc.vsPoniatowski, Paul et al.

Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.

patentIPR2025-00648

TankLogix, LLCvsSitePro, Inc.

TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro's 8,649,909 patent covering remote control of oil‑field fluid‑handling devices. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah—to argue anticipation or obviousness of all challenged claims. Discretionary factors favor institution.

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