Short Summary
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00657, Microsoft Corporation seeks inter partes review of claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039 owned by Dialect, LLC. The challenger argues that the asserted claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as they would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of U.S. Patent No. 6,964,023 (Maes) and U.S. Publication No. 2002/0133354 (Ross), which disclose similar multimodal speech and non‑speech processing techniques. The petition contends that the examiner never considered this combination during prosecution, constituting a material error, and that discretionary denial factors under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) weigh against denial, supporting institution of the proceeding.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation et al. vs Dialect, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Court decision.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
WHOOP, Inc.vsOmni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB remand decision held that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximetry patent are unpatentable, applying 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,687,281 covering non‑contiguous channel bonding in IEEE 802.11ax. The petition relies on multiple Wi‑Fi standard disclosures to argue lack of novelty and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Toyota Motor Corp.vsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
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.