Microsoft Corporation v. Dialect, LLC

IPR2025-01193

Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01193
Filing Date
21 July 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01328

Jesco Lighting Group, LLCvsAGS Lighting Management, LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01328 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending review in another case.

patentIPR2024-01070

Luxottica of America Inc. et al.vsE-Vision Optics, LLC

Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned for institution against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding patent 8801174, which covers smart eyeglasses technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

patentIPR2024-00727

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al.vsForas Technologies Limited

ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

patentIPR2024-01401

Klein Tools, Inc.vsMilwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.

patentIPR2024-00990

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al.vsHalliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.

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