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
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's 7523484 Patent in an IPR, asserting that the network security claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references (Krantz and Herrmann) disclose nearly identical architecture to the patented invention, making the claims unpatentable.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsCold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SEvsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.
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.