Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Viking Arm AS

IPR2025-00665

Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑3 of Viking Arm’s ’473 patent covering a handheld jacking tool. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over the German Gruber publication combined with the earlier Braselmann patent.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00665
Decision Date
28 February 2025
Filing Date
28 February 2025

Detailed Summary

In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑00665), Stanley Black & Decker seeks to invalidate claims 1‑3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,554,473, which claim a lowering mechanism for a handheld jacking tool featuring a caulking‑gun jacking mechanism, incremental lowering, and a release lever. The petitioner contends that the claimed features are taught by the German patent DE10127718A1 (Gruber) and that, in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,820,608 (Braselmann), the claims are obvious. The petition also argues that the USPTO erred by relying on a non‑representative reference (Baron) and overlooking the earlier prior art. 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 Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. vs Viking Arm AS is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2026-00256

Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al.vsJanssen Biotech, Inc. et al.

Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.

patentIPR2025-01431

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025‑01431, finding all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’918 hybrid memory module patent unpatentable after Samsung demonstrated obviousness over Harris, FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck.

patentIPR2025-01351

Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC

Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.

patentIPR2024-01173

Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company

Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully challenged The Procter & Gamble Company's patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability for key deodorant compositions. The Board found that prior art references taught sufficient motivation to combine elements across different personal care fields.

patentIPR2026-00018

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.

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