Short Summary
Airwallex has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, alleging obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition follows multiple infringement lawsuits in Texas that rely on the same patent.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑01446), Airwallex Pty. Ltd. requests the PTAB to institute a trial and cancel claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701, which covers a platform for trading assets across different currencies. The challenger contends that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the combined teachings of five prior‑art references—Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz—each of which discloses the essential elements of the platform. The petition also points to the examiner’s double‑patenting rejections during prosecution and emphasizes that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references. The patent is the subject of seven pending infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas, making the outcome of the IPR potentially impactful for ongoing litigation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. vs -- is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Viant Technology LLC et al.vs--
Viant, Mediaocean and AppLovin have filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 11,949,962, asserting that the combination of two prior publications makes the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found all 82 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that Zhang et al. anticipates or renders obvious the claims through various combinations with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey. Key findings included that Zhang's demultiplexer/selector satisfies the DFE limitation, and 'concurrently' does not require zero delay.
Senko Advanced ComponentsvsUS Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,880,075. The parties jointly requested the settlement be kept confidential and moved to withdraw the petition, ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
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.