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
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (10,469,555) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patented multi-bitrate content streaming system is rendered invalid by prior art references Leaning and Allen. This challenge targets a wide range of claims related to adaptive bitrate technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATIONvsWorcester Polytechnic Institute
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsValtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd.vsBarco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition against Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier web‑conferencing systems such as Beel, Dinka, Van de Laar, and Kaplan. The petition argues the examiner missed material prior art and erred in patentability analysis.
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.