Shuttleslide, LLC v. Sea Swivel Inc.

PGR2025-00089

Sea Swivel Inc. submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny ShuttleSlide’s post‑grant review of its trolling‑motor mount patent, arguing lack of statutory merit, defective prior‑art copies, and unreliable witness testimony.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00089
Decision Date
25 September 2025
Filing Date
25 September 2025

Detailed Summary

In its preliminary response to ShuttleSlide’s PGR petition, Sea Swivel Inc. contends that the petition fails the statutory threshold for institution because each cited reference either lacks essential claim elements or is presented in altered form, violating 35 U.S.C. §322(a). The Owner challenges the credibility of the petitioner’s expert and distributor witnesses, asserting bias and lack of evidentiary support. It also provides a detailed claim construction for the term “mounting plate,” supporting the patent’s validity, and refutes indefiniteness and written‑description grounds. The response seeks a denial of institution for all 18 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,258,111.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shuttleslide, LLC vs Sea Swivel Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01027

Minka Lighting, LLCvsWangs Alliance Corporation

Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.

patentIPR2025-00138

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).

patentIPR2024-01158

Reed Semiconductor CorporationvsMonolithic Power Systems, Inc.

Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi. The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.

patentIPR2025-00538

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.

patentIPR2026-00279

Fifth Third Bank, National AssociationvsUnited Services Automobile Association

USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all case deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to allow filing of dismissal papers.

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