Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2025‑00733, Tessell, Inc. seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 11,640,340, which covers a high‑availability database system that uses replication and snapshot‑based backup. The petitioner contends that the claimed subject matter is obvious in view of the prior‑art patents Chikkanayakanahally (U.S. Pat. 9,934,107) and Merriman (U.S. Pat. 8,572,031) under 35 U.S.C. §103, and that the examiner did not consider these references during prosecution. The petition further argues that no discretionary denial is warranted under §§314(a) and 325(d), citing recent stay and timing factors, and emphasizes the strong merits of the challenge.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tessell, Inc. vs Nutanix, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Nokia’s 9,036,701 patent. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy benefits of settlement.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.
Volex plcvsCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.
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.