Short Summary
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00377), iRhythm, Inc. challenges 26 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,007 owned by Welch Allyn, Inc. The challenger contends that the claims are unpatentable under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as they would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in view of the Jensen and Kroll references, together with general POSA knowledge, and, for certain claims, additional references such as DeLuca, Harland, and Thompson. The petition also addresses discretionary denial considerations under §§ 314(a) and 325(d), concluding that none of the factors favor denial. No claim construction or expert testimony beyond Dr. Jason Heikenfeld is presented. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage, awaiting a decision on institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in iRhythm, Inc. vs Welch Allyn, Inc. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al.vsARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal has filed Director Review requests for two IPRs, and POSCO has five days to submit a limited response without new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKeyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO denial of institution for its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed a petition to institute an IPR against KPN’s U.S. Patent 8,881,235 covering service‑based authentication in cellular networks, arguing that the claims are obvious over 3GPP standards, an IETF draft, Aldera, and Naslund. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Ascendis Pharma A/S et al.vsBioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Ascendis Pharma has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of BioMarin’s U.S. Patent 12,331,106 covering CNP‑variant treatments for achondroplasia. The petition alleges obviousness, anticipation, lack of enablement, and an improper dependent claim. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.vsH2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review of Home Depot’s geofencing patent (U.S. 12,056,736). The Board authorized the filing of the motion, ending the proceeding before any merits were decided.
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.