Abbott Laboratories et al. v. MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

IPR2025-00114

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).

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00114
Filing Date
27 November 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01489

Slack Technologies, LLC et al.vsWrinkl, Inc.

Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.

patentIPR2026-00154

Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.

patentIPR2024-00677

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.

CISCO Systems and FORTINET successfully instituted an IPR against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann. The Board agreed that combining network authentication (Krantz) with policy enforcement (Herrmann) would teach the claimed method for auditing devices.

patentIPR2025-00380

International Business Machines CorporationvsCroga Innovations Ltd.

IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,601,780 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317.

patentIPR2025-01206

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs and PGRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent Revvo precedent.

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