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
AT&T Corp et al.vsDaingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.
FLSmidth Inc.vsMetso Finland Oy (formerly known as Metso Outotec (Finland) Oy)
FLSmidth has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Metso's fluid‑bearing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner erred by not fully evaluating the combination of GB384, DE364 and other patents.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLCvsCarbyne, Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.
United Services Automobile AssociationvsAuto Telematics Ltd.
Auto Telematics Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its vehicle‑telematics patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored discretionary denial grounds.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
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.