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
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing that the Blaser, Calder and Schmidt-449 references render the claims obvious under §103. The petition also asserts that any discretionary denial would be improper.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.vsUMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the prior art reference Agarwala. The decision adopted Petitioner's construction that 'data beacons' was merely an intended use, and found that Agarwala disclosed every structural limitation of the claims through a combination of disclosures.
North Sails Group, LLCvsTeam New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Amazon.com et al.vsNL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of NL Giken’s 8,677,391 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems (Ray, Nolan, Cansler) under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
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.