Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In an order dated March 3, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the petition filed by Godbersen‑Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation seeking Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00835 (patent 11,535,318 B2). After considering the petition and the authorized response, the Director concluded that the request did not meet the statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and therefore denied the review. The denial means the earlier Board decision on the patent's validity remains effective, and no further appellate avenue is available within the USPTO for this matter.
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
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent on obviousness grounds, citing prior‑art references and earlier PTAB findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDamaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging Damaka's U.S. Pat. 11,930,362, which covers modular video‑conferencing software. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel claims 1‑28 and 75.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
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.