Short Summary
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Detailed Summary
In a Request for Director Review, EMKinetics, Inc. contests the PTAB’s Final Written Decision dated March 16, 2026, which found all 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,224,742 unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends that the Board substituted presumptions for the required evidence of public accessibility of non‑patent references, misapplied the printed‑publication standard under 35 U.S.C. §102, and improperly treated newly submitted evidence in the petitioner’s reply as rebuttal, violating the notice requirements of 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b). By shifting the evidentiary burden to the patent owner and using sua sponte research, the Board set a dangerous precedent. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision to preserve procedural fairness in IPRs.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Avation Medical, Inc. vs EMKinetics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences, LLC regarding display technology patents. The Board granted institution after a favorable claim construction of 'auxiliary electrode,' finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds.
Henri Daussi, LLCvsECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The Board terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after the parties settled, but the case continues against PacifiCorp.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01402 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The decision was based on a merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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.