Short Summary
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to review claims in Progenics' medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide a clear, single claim construction for key terms like 'risk map.'
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied the petition filed by MIM Software Inc. against Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,424,035. The denial was not based on the merits of unpatentability but rather on procedural grounds: Petitioner failed to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). By proposing multiple alternative constructions for terms such as 'risk map' and 'risk indices,' without explaining how these differing definitions would affect patentability analysis against the prior art (Maier, Huang), the Petition was deemed procedurally deficient.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in MIM Software Inc. et al. vs Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics, Harman International and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over patent 11,659,315 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s 2015 CDN patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
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.