Short 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).
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00655), Microsoft Corporation challenges claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,640,160 owned by Dialect, LLC. The challenger asserts that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as they would have been obvious in view of the combination of three prior‑art references: U.S. Patent No. 6,964,023 (Maes), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0133354 (Ross), and International Patent Application Publication No. WO 00/20962 (Coffman), with Coffman also incorporated by reference in Maes. The petition emphasizes that the examiner never considered these references, and therefore the Board should not exercise discretion to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a). No settlement or dismissal is discussed, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
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
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.
Perplexity AI, Inc.vsComet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
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.