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
Ericsson Inc. et al.vsGeneral Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsChen, Chien-Hao et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim based on obviousness. The Board specifically found evidence supporting Claim 1 over Lai and Hasegawa, while also noting inconclusive findings regarding Tsuji/Huang combinations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia's video encoding patent, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'the block,' narrowing its scope to be associated with the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate.
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.