Short Summary
NormShield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's network‑security rating patent (U.S. 9,973,524). The petition relies on §103 obviousness over McNab, McGovern, and Cole references and argues that FINTIV and §325(d) factors oppose denial.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2024‑01393, NormShield Inc. (doing business as Black Kite Inc.) seeks inter‑partes review of BitSight Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 9,973,524, which claims methods for mapping technical assets, collecting cyber‑security characterizations, and generating risk ratings. The challenger asserts two §103 grounds, contending that the claimed inventions are obvious in view of the 2008 O'Reilly book 'Network Security Assessment' (McNab), the McGovern patent publication, and the Cole patent, each teaching network enumeration, vulnerability scanning, duration measurement, and scoring. The petition also highlights FINTIV and §325(d) considerations as reasons to deny any discretionary denial, and references a related district‑court case. No claim construction or institution decision is present, as the filing is a petition.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) vs BitSight Technologies, Inc. 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 seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of its ’035 enzyme patent. The petition contends the Board mis‑interpreted claim language and mis‑applied eligibility standards, and argues that Fintiv factors demand denial of institution.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsTire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies files a response opposing Tire Stickers’ untimely Director Review request, arguing the Board has already institutioned the IPR and found no claim construction needed.
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.