Short Summary
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
Detailed Summary
In a Request for Director Review, GoSecure, Inc. asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution decisions for two inter partes review petitions (IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070) filed by CrowdStrike, Inc. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,954,872, contain 21 claims covering a method for identifying unauthorized activities on a computer system attached to a network. GoSecure contends that the Board erred by instituting two parallel IPRs without exceptional circumstances, by relying on alleged ambiguity of the term “association,” and by adopting an overbroad construction of “computer system” that conflates a computer system with a network, contrary to the specification and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of the institution decisions and termination of the proceedings to prevent unnecessary litigation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. vs GoSecure, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.
ASUSTek Computer Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsValtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.
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.