Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz, Inc.

IPR2025-01086

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01086
Filing Date
6 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00210

Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsEXELIXIS, INC.

Azurity Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Exelixis’s U.S. Pat. 11,298,349 covering oral cabozantinib (L)-malate formulations. The petition alleges anticipation by the earlier Wilson patent and obviousness over Brown, Kubo and Remington, while arguing that discretionary denial factors do not apply.

patentIPR2025-00717

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

The Director granted review of institution decisions in an IPR case, vacating the initial rulings and remanding the matter to the Board. The decision addressed the issue of multiple petitions challenging a single patent.

patentIPR2025-01041

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision not to institute an IPR against Audio Pod IP's patent 10,735,488.

patentPGR2025-00037

Ascend Elements, Inc.vsDuesenfeld GmbH

Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.

patentPGR2025-00016

Kubota North America Corporation et al.vsVermeer Manufacturing Company

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call