Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

IPR2024-01493

Western Digital requests the PTAB Director to vacate institution of an IPR on a hard‑disk‑drive MTJ patent, arguing that the case should be resolved in the pending district‑court litigation.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01493
Filing Date
27 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00230

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2010 microphone patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and Fintiv factors, ignoring settled expectations and the Director’s Guidance.

patentIPR2024-01271

Google LLCvsMetarail, Inc.

Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patent (10262342) at the PTAB, asserting that the claims are obvious.

patentIPR2024-00333

Apple Inc.vsCarbyne Biometrics, LLC

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.

patentIPR2024-01487

First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al.vsEssity Hygiene and Health AB

Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.

patentIPR2024-00853

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom for patent infringement related to remote patient monitoring and glucose technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, specifically finding that prior art combinations rendered key claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

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