Short Summary
Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.
Detailed Summary
Entegris filed an IPR challenging Inpria’s ’903 EUV dry‑resist patent. The PTAB instituted the proceeding based on an obviousness ground over Hänssgen, using a claim construction that diverged from a district court’s interpretation. Inpria’s patent‑owner request argues that Entegris relied on a declaration from Dr. Joseph Rivers, who lacked personal knowledge, violating the real‑party‑in‑interest requirement, and that the Board failed to explain its inconsistent claim construction. Inpria asks the Director to vacate the institution decision and terminate the IPR, citing Director policies on RPI disclosure and claim‑construction consistency.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Entegris, Inc. vs Inpria Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aerin Medical Inc.vsNeurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found sufficient evidence for unpatentability under both §102 and §103 over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala.
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsGreenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing abuse of discretion in denying discovery and striking claim‑construction orders.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
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.