Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00321, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713 owned by Stratasys, Inc., which claims a method for additive manufacturing that includes printing purge towers directly on the build substrate. The challenger asserts four grounds of unpatentability: three obviousness grounds based on combinations of Leavitt with RepRap, Priedeman with KISSlicer, and a three‑reference mix for claim 5, and one anticipation ground based on Boyer. The petition emphasizes that these references were never considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) is not justified. No institution decision has been made yet, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. vs Stratasys, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsActive Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson filed a Petition challenging Active Wireless Technologies' patent on 5G HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang and Yang under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR on all 29 claims of Wiz, Inc.'s patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that a combination of Ross, Agarwal, and Biran teaches every limitation of Claim 1, establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
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.