AROMA 360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.

IPR2025-00705

Aroma360 seeks to invalidate claims 7‑9 and 11 of Air Esscentials’ 9,527,094 patent on essential‑oil diffusers, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00705
Filing Date
18 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00864

WIZ, Inc.vsOrca Security Ltd.

The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.

patentIPR2024-01394

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.)vsBitSight Technologies, Inc.

NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four related IPRs before any trial was instituted.

patentIPR2024-01077

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.

patentIPR2025-00582

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes over nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.

patentIPR2024-00790

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron has requested a Director Review of the IPR decision against Yangtze Memory Technologies. The Patent Owner has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.

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