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
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.)vsBitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's network‑security rating patent (U.S. 9,973,524). The petition relies on §103 obviousness over McNab, McGovern, and Cole references and argues that FINTIV and §325(d) factors oppose denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01315 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institution decisions across various proceedings.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.vsMedline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Medline’s 11,661,220 catheter‑kit patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
AROMA 360, LLCvsAir Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.
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.