Executive Summary
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Related Cases
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.vsOncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on its AI‑driven ultrasound patent. The petitioner claims the Board erred factually and legally by demanding proof beyond the expert testimony that the prior art discloses a single‑frame ultrasound data set.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
TikTok Inc. and Bytedance Ltd, Bytedance Pte. Ltd., Bytedance Inc., TikTok Ltd., and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd.vsDiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of DiStefano’s reissued ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Block, Arnold, and Arora. The petition includes a detailed claim construction for “reciprocal site.”
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.