Intel Corporation v. Proxense, LLC

IPR2025-00329

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00329
Decision Date
23 December 2024
Filing Date
23 December 2024

Detailed Summary

Intel Corporation petitioned the PTAB for inter‑ partes review of U.S. Patent 8,457,672, owned by Proxense, LLC. The petition asserts that claims 1, 2 and 5‑10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because they are obvious in view of a combination of the Gilb guide to IEEE 802.15.3, the IEEE 802.15.3 standard itself, the Ward subscription‑based prioritization patent, and Brawn’s bit‑masking technique. Intel also proposes claim constructions that narrow the meaning of “synchronization information,” “class,” and “time slot,” and argues that the Board should not deny the petition under §§314(a) and 325(d). The proceeding is at the petition stage with no institution decision yet.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Intel Corporation vs Proxense, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01197

DR. FALK PHARMA GMBHvsEllodi Pharmaceuticals LP

DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH challenged Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's '729 patent, asserting obviousness of claims related to orally disintegrating corticosteroids for GI tract inflammation. The PTAB declined to deny the petition, finding that additional evidence warranted reconsideration of prior art references like Dohil and FDA Guidance.

patentIPR2025-01435

Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.

TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.

patentIPR2025-01125

Aerin Medical Inc.vsNeurent Medical Ltd. et al.

Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent's U.S. Patent 12,089,889 covering a nasal neuromodulation device, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and lack of written description.

patentIPR2025-01319

Cytek Biosciences, Inc.vsBeckman Coulter, Inc. et al.

Cytek Biosciences has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Beckman Coulter’s 2023 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs by Goodman and Oostman.

patentIPR2025-00557

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call