Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v. MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH

IPR2026-00015

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00015
Filing Date
10 August 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01205

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.

patentIPR2024-01130

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsOptronic Sciences LLC

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's LED backlighting patents (7168842) based on anticipation and obviousness. The challenge targets claims 3-9, arguing that combinations of prior art references like Uekusa and Isoda render the claimed technology unpatentable.

patentIPR2024-01078

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

The PTAB granted institution for a high-stakes IPR concerning wearable biosensor technology, specifically smart rings. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102) to proceed with trial on 17 claims.

patentIPR2025-01377

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC

Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,347,656 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings.

patentIPR2024-01106

Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al.vsCyboEnergy, Inc.

Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, ending the proceeding before institution.

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