Short Summary
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted institution for Inter Partes Review IPR2025-01598. After reviewing the non-discretionary considerations, the Board found that Medtronic, Inc., the petitioner, demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim challenged against Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293. This decision moves the case forward to the merits phase.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Medtronic, Inc. vs Moskowitz Family LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nikon Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Court decision.
Perplexity AI, Inc.vsComet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,650,968 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 and jointly request the Board to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLCvsSANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
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.