Short Summary
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of GoSecure’s ’697 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on five prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute review and notes that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Detailed Summary
CrowdStrike, Inc. petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,106,697 owned by GoSecure, Inc. The petition challenges all 23 claims, asserting they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Capalik alone or combined with Goel, King, Pike, and Farley. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis maps each limitation to the teachings of the cited references. The petitioner emphasizes that Capalik was never considered during prosecution, satisfying the discretion test under §325(d), and cites FINTIV factors favoring institution. No expert witnesses are listed, and the proceeding is pending a decision on whether to institute the review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. vs GoSecure, 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 59 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth beacon patent, asserting obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and requests institution of the review.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al.vsJackson, Roger
SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Apple Inc.vsVampire Labs, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01215, allowing Apple Inc. to challenge Vampire Labs' patent 8358103.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
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.