Short Summary
Abbott Laboratories’ petition to institute an IPR against Miracor Medical’s heart‑pump patent is challenged by Miracor, which argues the petition lacks particularity, violates claim‑construction rules, and circumvents word‑count limits, seeking discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Detailed Summary
Miracor Medical SA has filed a Request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2025‑00114 against its U.S. Patent No. 11,578,279 covering an implantable ventricular assist device. The petition, filed by Abbott Laboratories, is alleged to be deficient in several procedural respects: it fails to provide particularity for half of the challenged claims, does not supply explicit claim constructions, and manipulates formatting to undercount words, effectively exceeding the 14,000‑word limit. Miracor further contends that the merits of the petition are weak and that the Fintiv factors, along with the existence of parallel district‑court litigation, favor a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The request asks the Director to overturn the institution decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Abbott Laboratories et al. vs MIRACOR MEDICAL SA is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.:
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR challenge against MOSAID regarding power management technology. Despite a dissenting judge arguing for reasonable likelihood based on Nowka and Borkar, the Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or intrinsic support for its obviousness theories.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and confidentiality protections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on patent 11,129,163, arguing the Board misread prosecution history and ignored key arguments about BSS color usage.
NVIDIA CorporationvsLowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based AI patent. The company contends the Board ignored key trial‑date evidence, the patent’s recent issuance, and the opponent’s failure to file a POPR.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
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.