Short Summary
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025‑01351), Microsoft Corporation challenges claims 1‑2, 4‑9, and 12‑14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209, which covers a system for responding to natural‑language speech utterances. The challenger alleges that the claims are obvious in view of the Khan international application and, in combination, the Riccardi, Iizuka, and Hartono patents, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103 across four separate grounds. The petition argues that no objective evidence of non‑obviousness exists and requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and invalidate the challenged claims. Related district‑court litigations involving Dialect are listed, but no settlement or denial is indicated at this stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Microsoft Corporation vs Dialect, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsTire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies files a response opposing Tire Stickers’ untimely Director Review request, arguing the Board has already institutioned the IPR and found no claim construction needed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.
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.