Short Summary
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging DexCom's remote monitoring patents, arguing that the claims are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed methods and systems unpatentable.
Detailed Summary
This IPR challenges 13 claims of patent 9801541 related to Remote Patient Monitoring/Glucose Monitoring technology. Petitioner Abbott argues under 35 U.S.C. § 103 that the claimed inventions are obvious when combining diverse prior art references. Specific grounds detail how Aspel and Gutekunst, combined with Breen, teach elements of Claims 2 and 3, while other combinations involving Paterno, Valdes, and Hanson cover the independent claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. vs DexCom, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Garmin International, Inc.vsCardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,980,998, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final decision.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while claims 25,26,28,29 remain patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the challenged patent.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
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.