Short Summary
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01367, allowing Albany International Corp. to challenge Voith Patent GmbH's patent 9982388.
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (PTAB) found that Albany International Corp. met the threshold for institution in IPR2025-01367 against Voith Patent GmbH's patent 9982388. The decision was based on the petitioner demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or showing that at least one challenged claim is more likely than not unpatentable, thus moving the case into merits review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Albany International Corp. vs Voith Patent GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Charter Communications, Inc. et al.vsTouchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDamaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka’s U.S. 9,027,032 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over four prior‑art references that disclose similar APIs, function blocks, and authentication mechanisms.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
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.