Short Summary
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
Detailed Summary
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Masaba, Inc., challenging a patent covering aggregate transfer and conveyance systems. The petition asserts multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, arguing that the claimed apparatus is merely a predictable combination of known elements from prior art references including Waldner, Dynatek, Sleeman, Pham, Auld, and McIver. Given the factors favoring institution in related case law, the PTAB decided to institute the review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. vs Masaba, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsHBCU MESSAGING US LP
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions across six IPRs, leaving the institution rulings intact and preserving Apple’s challenge to HBCU’s patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsCOGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success, focusing on the definition of “filament” and its flexibility versus prior art.
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.