Short Summary
Vicor Corporation has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Delta Electronics’ 10,877,534 patent covering stacked power converters. The petitioner contends the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony contrary to prior art.
Detailed Summary
In Petitioner's Request for Director Review (IPR2024-00715), Vicor Corporation challenges the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to deny institution of an inter partes review of Delta Electronics’ U.S. Patent No. 10,877,534, which claims stacked power converter configurations. Vicor asserts that the Board improperly gave weight to the patent owner’s expert testimony alleging heat‑dissipation issues, despite a lack of objective evidence and the existence of heat‑sink‑less embodiments in the Vinciarelli‑218 prior art. The petitioner seeks clarification of 37 C.F.R. §42.108(c) and a reversal of the denial, arguing that the factual dispute should be resolved at trial rather than at the institution stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Vicor Corporation vs Delta Electronics, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLCvsDigital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness (103), specifically concluding that prior art references taught every element of Independent Claim 1. The Board also adopted broad claim constructions, rejecting narrow interpretations proposed by the Patent Owner regarding terms like 'Exhibitor' and 'Distribution'.
Hisense USA Corp. et al.vsLight Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in district court and before the PTAB violate recent Revvo precedent.
Apple Inc.vsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2‑4 and 11 of U.S. Patent 10,218,995, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsQPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s petition for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025‑00836 against QPRIVACY USA LLC’s patent 11,816,249. The denial leaves the patent unchallenged.
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.