Short Summary
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00532, Stratasys, Inc. challenges the PTAB’s decision to refer and institute inter partes review of claims 1‑15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381, a 3D‑printing technology patent. The Patent Owner contends that the Acting Director failed to give proper weight to Fintiv factors 2 and 3, ignoring the imminent district‑court trial date and the extensive discovery already completed. It further argues that the petitioner’s stipulations do not moot the parallel litigation, allowing duplicate invalidity challenges. Relying on case law and the Guidance Memorandum, Stratasys requests Director Review to vacate the decisions and terminate the IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. vs Stratasys, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references (Mgrdechian, Swartz, Kulakowski) under §§102 and 103. Google seeks institution of the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review against its hyaluronidase patent, arguing filing‑date errors, improper claim construction, and Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp’s IPRs against BirchTech were terminated for MidAmerican Energy after the parties settled, with the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB denied the Patent Owner's request for Director Review, remanding the cases to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses in IPR2025-00423.
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.