Short Summary
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
Detailed Summary
Dexcom filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition asserting grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent covering Glucose Monitoring Systems/Inserters. The petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Stafford, Raymond, and Turner. Specifically, the petition argues that POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references to solve known deficiencies in the individual disclosures, such as improving insertion mechanics or adding rotation-restricting features.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dexcom, Inc. vs Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd.vsCLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's patent (11222448) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, related to real-time measurement guides in CAD software, are predictable combinations of existing technologies like Grinspun and Graphicxtras.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc.vsRE Secured Networks, LLC
OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
Treasure Garden, Inc.vsATLeisure, LLC
Treasure Garden petitions the PTAB to invalidate all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art umbrellas and proposing claim constructions.
SNAP INC. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
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.