Executive Summary
Foleon’s request for Director review to impose an adverse judgment on Turtl Surf & Immerse was denied. The Patent Owner argued procedural impropriety and reliance on established PTAB precedent rejecting adverse judgments after a disclaimer.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Foleon Inc. et al. vs TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Bitsgap Holding OU et al.vsIntercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsInterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
AROMA 360, LLCvsAir Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR against Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (9527094) for obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 7 based on Sevy, leading to trial institution.
Vectair Systems Inc.vsFresh Products, Inc.
Vectair Systems Inc. filed an opening petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,145,098 owned by Fresh Products, Inc. The challenge asserts that claims 1, 19, and 38 are anticipated (Section 102) or obvious (Section 103) based on various prior art references related to urinal screens and deodorizers.
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.