Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In response to FoLeon's request for Director review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01525, Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited, represented by Matthew A. Argenti, contended that the petitioner failed to preserve the issue of adverse judgment, offered no permissible basis for review, and that PTAB precedent—including General Electric and multiple subsequent decisions—consistently declines to enter adverse judgments after a pre‑institution disclaimer. Citing case law and emphasizing efficient Office administration, the Patent Owner urged denial of the Director review, a position the Director ultimately upheld.
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
3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,969,333 patent covering intravascular clot‑removal systems. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, prompting the Board to institute review on all challenged claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Court decision.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al.vsVervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsOS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
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.