Executive Summary
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Be Smarter, LLC et al. vs Yondr, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd.vsDermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.
VIZIO, Inc.vsMultimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
Google LLCvsProxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
Ascend Elements, Inc.vsDuesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art 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.