Executive Summary
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Related Cases
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable. The Board’s claim construction of “filament” as a flexible element undermined the anticipation argument and found the obviousness combinations persuasive.
Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s patent (11329973) covering digital identity and credential management. The Board adopted key constructions for 'OVER file' and 'verified by an issuing agency,' clearing the path for a full trial on obviousness grounds.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cisco and Fortinet against InfoExpress, finding no reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,350 would be found obvious over prior art.
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.