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
Curio Bioscience, Inc.vsPrognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Capital One, National Association et al.vs--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting 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.