Short Summary
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review (IPR2025‑01063), Perplexity AI, Inc. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,650,968 owned by Comet ML, Inc. The petitioner contends that each of the twelve claims is unpatentable as obvious, relying on a combination of prior‑art references: Baker and Lorenz for claims 1 and 6‑8; Baker, Lorenz, and Shridhar for claims 2‑4 and 9‑11; and Baker, Lorenz, and Jenatton for claims 5 and 12. Citing 35 U.S.C. §103, the petition requests cancellation of the entire claim set. 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 Perplexity AI, Inc. vs Comet ML, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Doughty, Abe, and others.
Klein Tools, Inc. et al.vsMilwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,857,064 covering a belt‑mounted tool pouch. The challenger alleges anticipation by Albrecht and obviousness over combinations of Albrecht, Gabriel, and Glock, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
Inari Agriculture, Inc.vsPioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
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.