Executive Summary
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Penumbra, Inc. vs RapidPulse, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD.vsSeasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Seasonal Specialties' patent covering series LED circuits with bypass resistors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are anticipated or obvious based on prior art disclosures in lighting technology.
Apple Inc.vsRJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
Sony CorporationvsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully challenged Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent, arguing the claims were obvious over prior art references like Niikawa and Watanabe-JP. The Board agreed to institute review, resulting in the cancellation of several key claims related to in-camera image processing.
Apple Inc.vsNL Giken Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR challenging NL Giken's content streaming patent, asserting that core bookmarking and next-content navigation features are obvious over prior art references Cordray and Wiser.
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.