Dr. Squatch, LLC v. The Procter & Gamble Company

IPR2024-01173

Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a PTAB decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company challenges the Board’s claim construction, motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner’s failure to disclose real parties in interest.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01173
Decision Date
17 July 2024
Filing Date
17 July 2024

Detailed Summary

In Request for Director Review (IPR2024-01173), The Procter & Gamble Company asks the PTAB Director to vacate and reverse the Final Written Decision that held claims 1‑7, 9‑13, and 18‑19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,905,647 unpatentable. P&G contends the Board improperly used extrinsic expert testimony to import a standard ASTM hardness test, ignoring the patent’s intrinsic disclosure of a distinct 50‑gram test, and failed to articulate a rational motivation for combining non‑natural, aluminum‑ and silicone‑based references with P&G’s natural, aluminum‑free deodorant formulations, violating KSR. Additionally, P&G alleges the petitioner, Dr. Squatch LLC, did not properly identify all real parties in interest, warranting dismissal of the petition.

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

patentPGR2024-00046

Senko Advanced Components, Inc.vsUS Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.

patentIPR2025-00900

Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.

patentIPR2025-01493

Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP

Apple has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR on the ’450 instant‑messaging patent. Apple argues the denial was premature and inefficient, especially given related petitions now referred. The request asks the Board to vacate the denial and institute the proceeding.

patentIPR2025-00860

Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC

Google LLC initiated an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent (10924573) covering Content Delivery Networks. The Board instituted the case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google could prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art combinations.

patentIPR2025-01267

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC

BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call