Executive Summary
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s ’340 database‑management patent, arguing obviousness over Chikkanayakanahally and Merriman. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Related Cases
Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc., successfully petitioned for institution in a high-stakes IPR against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s digital credentialing patent (9251531). The Board adopted key claim constructions favorable to the Petitioner and found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on prior art references.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al.vsFeit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1 and 11‑14 of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing they are obvious over several LED‑related publications. The petition seeks institution of inter‑partes review.
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’290 patent, asserting that all fourteen claims are obvious over six prior‑art references previously used in IPR2024‑00530.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd.vsCorning Incorporated
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
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.