Short Summary
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Detailed Summary
In its sur‑reply to TCL’s petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,780, Maxell, Ltd. argues that the petitioner’s single ground merely repeats the Lawther reference already considered during prosecution and adds no new prior art. The patent owner asserts there is no material error because the petition re‑hashes earlier arguments, and contends that the petitioner’s claim‑construction positions are unsupported and would fail under any construction. Accordingly, Maxell urges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny institution of the petition.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. vs Maxell, Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 catheter aspiration patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The review covers all 15 claims and four obviousness grounds involving Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in several Samsung‑related IPRs, leaving the original institution rulings intact.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in light of prior art references Zhou and Cai.
FreightCar America, Inc.vsNational Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America, Inc. successfully challenged National Steel Car Limited's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 2 based on obviousness over prior art references. This decision keeps the dispute alive for trial on several key claims.
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.