Short Summary
Abbott Laboratories filed a Petition challenging Newtonoid Technologies' patent claims based on obviousness. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies, such as dynamic barcodes and environmental monitoring, renders the claims unpatentable over multiple prior art references. This challenge targets 18 specific claims related to stimuli-responsive labels.
Detailed Summary
Abbott Laboratories has initiated a PTAB petition against Newtonoid Technologies regarding Patent No. 11392818 (Sensing and Tracking). The core argument is that the claimed combination of static (e.g., barcode) and dynamic (stimuli-responsive material) information is obvious. This obviousness is supported by three distinct sets of prior art combinations: Prusik/Vaillant (cold chain management), Burg (diagnostic instruments), and Dimov (image-based diagnostics). The petition challenges 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, detailing how each combination discloses every limitation of the challenged 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 Laboratories vs Newtonoid Technologies, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hulu LLC et al.vs--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement agreement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
uPI Semiconductor Inc.vsForce MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
Walmart Inc. et al.vsSecurity Technology, LLC et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Apple Inc.vsVampire Labs, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged 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.