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
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,122,418 patent. The owner contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review, upholding the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung after the Patent Owner failed to show good cause for extending the deadline.
Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al.vsHowmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
EP Family Corp.vsOffice Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.
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.