Short Summary
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
Detailed Summary
Mito Red Light, Inc. filed a Petition challenging patent number 11253719 held by Joovv, Inc., asserting that the claims are unpatentable based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petitioner's arguments center on combining prior art references, specifically Dijkstra and Norwood, with the knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to show that the claimed features in photobiomodulation therapy systems would have been obvious. This challenge is related to ongoing litigation in District Court.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mito Red Light, Inc. vs Joovv, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Padagis US LLC et al.vsNeurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Neurelis, Inc.'s nasal drug formulations patent (8895546) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB institution decision allows Padagis to proceed with the unpatentability arguments against all 22 claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc.vsSTA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
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.