Short Summary
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical's U.S. Pat. 10,898,709, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over earlier neurostimulation disclosures such as Durand, Hoegh, Headley and Tran. The petition seeks institution of review and cancellation of the claims.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2026‑00090), Nyxoah, Inc. and Nyxoah SA challenge U.S. Patent No. 10,898,709 owned by Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., which claims a hypoglossal nerve stimulation system for treating obstructive sleep‑disordered breathing. The petition contends that claims 1‑15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the combination of prior‑art references: Durand and Hoegh (Ground 1) and Headley together with Tran‑I and Tran‑II (Ground 2). Detailed analyses argue that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, rendering the claims obvious. The petition requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and ultimately cancel the 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 Nyxoah, Inc. et al. vs Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Malikie Innovations’ dock patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Tsutsui Japanese application. The petition includes a technical expert declaration and asserts no discretionary denial applies.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, and the claims were declared unpatentable.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”
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.