Short Summary
Court decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Anthony Inc. vs ControlTec, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.vsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs parties of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.vsViking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
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.