Avidbots Corporation et al. v. Brain Corporation

IPR2025-01600

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01600
Filing Date
30 October 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00185

National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.

National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.

patentIPR2026-00006

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie Innovations' 8,610,397 battery‑charger patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several Japanese and U.S. references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patentIPR2024-00679

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.

CISCO and FORTINET filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of InfoExpress's U.S. Patent No. 7,523,484 in the PTAB. The petitioners argue that the network access methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation against InfoExpress in District Court.

patentIPR2024-01380

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al.vsSandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patentIPR2025-01351

Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC

The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.

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