Short Summary
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
Geotab Inc. and Geotab USA, Inc. have petitioned the PTAB for a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,149, which claims antenna design parameters for wireless devices. The petition asserts that every claim (1‑20) is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 because the claimed “complexity factors” and antenna configurations are taught or would have been obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references, including the Dou patent application, Ciais‑Multiband and Quadband antenna papers, Nakano’s inverted‑FL antenna, Jing’s planar monopole, Hilgers’ GPS/Bluetooth antenna, and Ying’s dual‑band antenna. The petition requests that the Board institute review and cancel all claims, emphasizing that the examiner never considered these references during prosecution. No institution decision has yet been made.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Geotab Inc. et al. vs Fractus, S.A. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the PTAB's final written decision on the ’484 patent. They allege the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and breaching the burden of conception and diligence.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsCerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies' patent, ruling that Revvo Technologies failed to adequately explain its differing claim construction positions between the PTAB and district court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 34 claims of Netlist’s ’060 patent obvious over prior art. The Board adopted key claim constructions and invalidated the entire patent.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
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.