Short Summary
Orca Security has filed a petition to invalidate Wiz’s ’549 patent covering AI‑driven cybersecurity incident response. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art combining a 2022 cybersecurity system (Peters) with a 2024 LLM‑focused disclosure (Lal). The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-01086, Orca Security Ltd. seeks inter partes review of claims 1‑5 and 11‑16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,549, which claim a method, apparatus, and system for providing cybersecurity incident response using a large language model (LLM) and a security database. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the combination of U.S. Patent No. 11,303,666 (Peters), describing a cyber‑threat detection and mitigation platform, with U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0403428 and its related provisional application (Lal), disclosing LLM‑based analysis and prompting, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. The petition includes proposed claim constructions for two disputed terms but no board construction has been made. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage, with no institution decision rendered.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Orca Security Ltd. vs Wiz, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al.vsThe Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and withdrawing pending review requests.
Phison Electronics CorporationvsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging fourteen claims of the ’180 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric MOSFET structures. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over several pre‑2005 publications, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford’s IPR petition for patent 9,020,697 faces a director‑review brief from AutoConnect arguing that Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness positions warrant 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.