Short Summary
Aktana has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, arguing obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications and urging the Board to institute the review.
Detailed Summary
Aktana, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,391,937, which claims a system and method for controlling electronic communications. The petitioner challenges claims 1‑8, 10‑14, and 17‑20 on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, relying on a combination of prior‑art references—Farnsworth, Liebenberg, Amstutz, Harrell, and Xu. The petition outlines four statutory grounds, each pairing specific claims with the relevant prior art, and argues that there is a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. It also presents discretionary factors favoring institution, such as the absence of a stay and overlapping issues with parallel district‑court litigation. No claim constructions are asserted, and the proceeding is currently awaiting the Board’s institution decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aktana, Inc vs Veeva Systems Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al.vsColumbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2024‑00050, finding claims 5 and 17 indefinite and lacking written description, and deeming claims 1‑12, 15‑17, and 21‑23 obvious over Gilb ’792 and Bundy. The Board granted a partial amendment for claim 32 while denying other proposed substitute claims.
Samsara Inc.vsMotive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al.vsCole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 documents the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs, and Cole Haan, concluding IPR2025-01394.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
MIM Software Inc. et al.vsEXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software seeks an IPR of EXINI Diagnostics' 3D cancer‑lesion segmentation patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition claims the examiner erred by relying on an outdated Hamadeh reference.
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.