smaXtec Inc. et al. v. ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.

IPR2024-00875

smaXtec challenges ST Reproductive Technologies’ animal‑implant RFID patent, arguing the prior art was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure anticipates the claimed implanted device elements.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00875
Filing Date
5 February 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01183

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 59 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth beacon patent, asserting obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and requests institution of the review.

patentIPR2025-00807

Henri Daussi, LLCvsECNA, LLC et al.

Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.

patentIPR2024-00792

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's arguments that claims 1-6 of patent 11468957 were unpatentable. The Board found the anticipation argument failed because Suzuki did not disclose a distinct 'pre-verify stage,' and obviousness arguments failed due to insufficient establishment of required elements over prior art combinations.

patentIPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.

Petitioners and BirchTech have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreements confidential under statutory authority.

patentIPR2025-01118

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.

BirchTech (MES, Inc.) opposes Union Electric’s request for Director Review of a denied institution of an IPR covering a mercury‑control patent. The response argues the Director’s decision is final, the patent’s litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests for joinder and stay are untimely.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call