Executive Summary
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Related Cases
Toyota Motor Corp. et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01289 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public policy and efficiency reasons for early termination.
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsGreenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenges the validity of a patent covering CMOS device fabrication methods on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition asserts that the claimed graded dopant structures are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations, including Kawagoe and Wieczorek.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co.vsThe Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,791,808, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
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.