Short Summary
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s copper foil patent, upholding the finding that obviousness claims lacked sufficient evidence.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s Request for Rehearing regarding the denial of institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 10,811,689 B2. The Board affirmed its original decision that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations of prior art references (Shinozaki, Khatibi, Toshio, Kim, Griesi). The denial was based on the finding that the Petitioner's supporting evidence, particularly Dr. Randall’s testimony, was often conclusory and lacked adequate objective support for meeting specific claim limitations.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. vs SK nexilis Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al.vsFienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
Google LLCvsProxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in the IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding hybrid device technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) across multiple claims. This decision validates Google's position that the challenged patent is anticipated by prior art combinations.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks a Director’s discretionary denial of Abbott’s institution of IPR2025‑00116, arguing the petition lacks particularity, misuses claim constructions, and violates word‑count rules. The Board had previously granted institution of the IPR.
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.