Short Summary
Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.
Detailed Summary
In Petitioner's Request for Director Review of Institution Decision (IPR2025‑01525), Foleon Inc. challenges the USPTO Board’s denial of institution for its IPR against claims 1‑18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,290. Foleon contends that Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s disclaimer of all claims constitutes a request for adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. §42.73(b), which should trigger estoppel under §42.73(d)(3). The petitioner argues that the Board’s refusal to allow a motion for adverse judgment is erroneous because the issue remains distinct from the institution decision. Citing Amgen and Smith & Nephew decisions where adverse judgments were entered in the pre‑institution phase, Foleon urges the Director to amend the decision to include adverse judgment or, alternatively, to grant authorization to file a motion for such judgment.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Foleon Inc. et al. vs TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
NIUM PTE. LTD.vsIntercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. and Intercurrency Software LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01586 after reaching a confidential settlement over a foreign‑exchange trading patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved the ’918 flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi and Hajeck. All 30 challenged claims were declared unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsW&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of W&Wsens’ ’871 photodetector patent, asserting obviousness over earlier imaging patents by Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu.
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.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s decision to refer the matter to the district court, leaving HBCU Messaging’s patent intact.
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.