Executive Summary
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsDialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining Ellis and Spivey taught an 'event socket' to improve latency, while other grounds were also met by the combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
Datavant, Inc. et al.vsVigilytics LLC
Datavant, Inc. successfully challenged 20 claims of Vigilytics LLC's patent (10886012) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the technology for de-identifying medical data was obvious over prior art references like Evenhaim and Murphy. The PTAB decided to institute the case, finding a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
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.