Short Summary
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Detailed Summary
In a Director Review request (IPR2024-01104), The Procter & Gamble Company challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that held all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 unpatentable. P&G contends the Board erred by importing the standard ASTM D‑1321 hardness test rather than the patent’s intrinsic 50‑g test, failed to articulate a proper motivation to combine the Bianchi references with natural‑ingredient references, and the petitioner, Dr. Squatch LLC, did not properly identify all real parties in interest after its acquisition by Unilever. P&G seeks vacatur of the decision and reversal of the unpatentability findings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dr. Squatch, LLC vs The Procter & Gamble Company is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.
Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.
Paragon 28, Inc.vsTREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a patent infringement lawsuit tied to its Lapiplasty bunion‑correction system. The settlement concludes the related PGR proceeding (PGR2026‑00017).
Nearmap US, Inc.vsEagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap's request for Director Review of the earlier institution denial in the IPR against Eagle View's patent.
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.