Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLC

IPR2025-00480

Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 15 claims of H2 Intellect’s 296 patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art advertising systems (Elliott, Jacob) and a location‑search patent (Musk). The petition includes detailed claim constructions and asserts that discretionary denial is not warranted.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00480
Filing Date
4 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01306

UiPath, Inc.vsRule 14 LLC

UiPath petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Rule 14’s ’712 data‑mining patent, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a broad set of prior art covering collection selection and non‑textual data queries.

patentIPR2024-00715

Vicor CorporationvsDelta Electronics, Inc.

Vicor Corporation has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Delta Electronics’ 10,877,534 patent covering stacked power converters. The petitioner contends the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony contrary to prior art.

patentIPR2024-00859

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.

patentIPR2025-01364

Ciena CorporationvsK.Mizra LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01364 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

patentIPR2024-00871

Reed Semiconductor CorporationvsMonolithic Power Systems, Inc.

The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.

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