Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v. BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

PGR2025-00081

Nicholson Manufacturing has petitioned the PTAB to cancel all 18 claims of BID Group Technologies' AI‑enabled log debarking patent, asserting obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and indefiniteness.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00081
Filing Date
29 August 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01253

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.

patentIPR2025-00087

Charter Communications, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing the Fintiv factors and lack of compelling merits despite strong arguments regarding network optimization technology.

patentIPR2025-01182

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate a suite of claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated exchange of loyalty and coupon data between wireless devices. The petition relies on the Perttila and Insolia references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.

patentIPR2025-00021

Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.

patentIPR2025-00585

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printing patent covering RFID‑based material tagging, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging institution of the review.

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