Executive Summary
The USPTO denied GOMACO's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00835, leaving the prior Board decision in place.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation vs Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Empire Technology Development LLC's patent related to channel estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious over several distinct prior art references, including Haustein and Tang.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.vsCAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Cox Communications, Inc.vsEntropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenges Entropic's '775 Patent in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
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.