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
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01205. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was correctly applied and that Motorola failed to show specific errors. The denial leaves the Director Review decision standing.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,049,652 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of key mutants. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business‑confidential information, limiting public access.
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.