Short Summary
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Detailed Summary
Shopify Inc. filed Petition IPR2025-00130 seeking inter partes review of all twenty claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,678, which covers a server‑based system for generating and distributing product‑listing widgets in electronic commerce and social networks. The petitioner asserts three grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103: (1) claims 1‑20 are obvious over the Johnston publication; (2) claims 1‑4, 7‑12, and 15‑18 are obvious over the combination of Wiser and Dierks; and (3) claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are obvious over Wiser, Dierks, and Chang. Shopify contends the examiner materially erred by not considering these references, that the petition is not cumulative of an ongoing ex parte reexamination, and that discretionary denial under § 325(d) is not warranted. The petition also cites relevant case law on material error and discretionary denial. No decision on institution has been made yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shopify Inc. vs DKR Consulting LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAP America, Inc.vsISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP settled their dispute over a 1999 ERP‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01562) filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical’s patent 11,844,921 after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that Samsung’s inconsistent claim constructions violate Board rules.
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s 2018 ‘715 patent on audio‑synchronization claims, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
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.