Short Summary
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics, Inc.'s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two inter partes review proceedings, IPR2024-00952 (patent 8,989,952) and IPR2024-00966 (patent 9,333,946). Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director C. Morgan Stewart concluded that the petitions did not satisfy the statutory standards for Director Review, and therefore ordered the requests denied. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which were also denials, 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 Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. vs Sfara, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
Valve Corporation petitioned the PTAB, arguing that Immersion Corporation's patent (7336260) is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Komata, Tsuji, and Rosenberg. The Board agreed to institute the IPR proceedings based on the compelling evidence presented by the petitioner.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Court decision.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review petition after the USPTO denied institution of seven IPRs challenging iCashe’s patent. The petition also references concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFractus, S.A.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Fractus's patent covering antenna design/MFWD technology. Petitioner Geotab Inc. et al. asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), challenging 20 claims based on prior art including Dou, Jing, and Baliarda-543. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, moving forward with the trial preparation phase.
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.