Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 8,433,296 owned by H2 Intellect LLC. The petitioner seeks cancellation of all fifteen claims, contending that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the Elliott and Jacob patent applications, with the addition of the Musk patent for claims 4, 9, and 14. The petition provides extensive claim constructions for terms such as “reserving” and “registering,” argues that the prior art discloses each limitation, and argues that the Board should not consider discretionary denial under the applicable regulations. No institution decision has been made, 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 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. vs H2 Intellect LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al.vsAX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment has filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless’s 10,917,272 patent covering OFDM header repetition. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of the Hansen patent, the July 2005 WWiSE proposal, and Choi’s repetition‑coding publication under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
Union Electric requests Director Review of a Board denial, arguing the ‘430 mercury‑removal patent is invalid for lack of priority, written description, and obviousness. The petition cites extensive prior art and warns that settlements are being used to avoid a merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.'s 10,343,114 B2 mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑30, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.