Short Summary
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing that combinations of prior art references render the technology obvious. The petitioner focused on combining Astala/Shahoian for gesture recognition and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov for pressure determination techniques.
Detailed Summary
In this PTAB petition, Valve Corporation challenged 18 claims held by Immersion Corporation, asserting that the claimed haptic feedback and gesture recognition technology is unpatentable under both 102 and 103. The petitioner's core arguments centered on demonstrating obviousness through various combinations of prior art references, including Astala/Shahoian (for general gesture implementation) and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov (for specific pressure and dwell detection). While the Board ultimately denied institution for a second petition based on General Plastic factors, the proceedings highlighted significant arguments regarding conventional engineering practices in Human-Computer Interaction.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Valve Corporation vs Immersion Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsAmerican GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and KPN settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate six inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00512 covering U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Therabody, Inc.vsHyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Hyperice’s percussive massage patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
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.