Executive Summary
Institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01356) was granted after a merits review, confirming the petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Regions Bank vs United Services Automobile Association is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LiftWerx USA Inc.vsLiftra IP ApS et al.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Samsung Bioepis sought to invalidate numerous claims of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' ophthalmic formulations using grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB denied institution based on a holistic Fintiv analysis, citing significant overlap with ongoing district court and MDL proceedings.
Hanwha Solutions CorporationvsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell fabrication patent (8878053). The petitioner argues that the claimed processes are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining known elements from prior art references like Froitzheim, Gan, and Smith. The Board noted that discretionary denial was unwarranted due to factors related to multiple petitions.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
Microsoft CorporationvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for IPR2026-00095, allowing Microsoft Corporation to challenge Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903.
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.