Short Summary
Resonac files an IPR petition challenging MR Technologies' 11,138,997 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media. The petition asserts obviousness over Takenoiri (and Li for certain claims) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑2, 4‑7, and 9.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2026-00015, Resonac Hard Disk Corporation and its affiliates petition the PTAB to review U.S. Patent No. 11,138,997, which claims a multilayer perpendicular magnetic recording system with a nucleation host. The petition contends that the Takenoiri patent alone anticipates claims 1‑2 and 5‑7, and that Takenoiri combined with the Li patent renders claims 4 and 9 obvious, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition highlights that the Examiner failed to consider these references, resulting in an erroneous allowance. The challengers request that the Board institute the IPR and cancel the seven challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. vs MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Google LLC et al.vsCerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs challenging Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
RegenX Science Inc.vsNeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 30 claims of NeXtGen’s 2023 patent covering axolotl‑derived extracellular matrix scaffolds, arguing the claims are obvious 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.