Short Summary
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.
Detailed Summary
In a decision dated March 17, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request for a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546, owned by Vervain, LLC. The Board concluded that Phison failed to meet the statutory burden of showing that it was more likely than not that any of the seven challenged claims were unpatentable. Challenges based on patent‑eligible subject matter, obviousness, written description, enablement, and indefiniteness were found insufficient, and no claim term required explicit construction. Although the Board considered discretionary denial under §§ 324(a) and 325(d), it ultimately denied the petition and did not institute a review.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Phison Electronics Corporation vs Vervain, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
Amazon.com Services LLCvsVB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to grant withdrawal of pending Director Review requests for the three IPRs.
Google LLCvsPOINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
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.