Short Summary
BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Detailed Summary
In this petition for inter partes review, BMW of North America, LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,627,781 owned by Foras Technologies Limited. The challenger requests the Board to institute review and cancel claims 1‑30, asserting that each claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when viewed in combination with the Fox, Safford, Arai, Landry, Jin, and Bigbee references. The petition highlights that these references were not considered during prosecution, that the examiner’s rejections were erroneous, and that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is improper. Detailed claim constructions are provided for the terms “detecting loss of lockstep” and the firmware‑logic limitation. No institution decision has been made yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in BMW of North America, LLC et al. vs Foras Technologies Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al.vsHippocratic AI, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied OneSource Solutions' request for Director Review of the denial to institute a PGR against Hippocratic AI's patent 12,142,371. The original institution denial therefore remains in effect.
Lam Research Corp.vsInpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
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.