Decent Espresso International Ltd. v. DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC

IPR2025-00747

Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00747
Filing Date
17 March 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00775

Microsoft CorporationvsProxense, LLC

Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding biometric authentication claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over Burger and Robinson.

patentIPR2025-00709

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Milestone Entertainment argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the prior art discloses key virtual‑currency features of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The response stresses missing disclosures of a multiplier and image‑based conversion, and a lack of motivation to combine references, seeking denial of the petition.

patentIPR2025-01466

Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.

MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a media data converter and a single data capture device in the prior art, and therefore should be denied. The petition targets claims 6‑17 of U.S. Patent 10,237,067 covering context‑aware image tagging.

patentIPR2025-01435

Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.

Guardant Health’s ’699 patent on duplex consensus sequencing is challenged by Tempus AI, which alleges the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.

patentIPR2024-00514

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd et al., citing a lack of diligence in prior art searching and procedural issues. The Board found that Petitioner failed to substantiate its search efforts, compounded by the existence of similar references cited during prosecution.

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