Short Summary
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.
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
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al.vsRazdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed a petition to invalidate claim 1 of Razdog’s cloud‑computing patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of an IPR trial.
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT seeks to invalidate Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent (U.S. 12,171,916) by arguing all 22 claims are obvious, lack written description, and are abstract calculations. The petition requests cancellation of the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAdvanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies have reached a confidential settlement over U.S. Patent 8,090,025 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution of IPR petitions filed by ASUSTeK against Nokia, preventing the trial on patentability issues.
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.