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
Google LLCvs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge a patent covering image processing techniques, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art references like Luo-250.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. All nine claims are now under review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decisions in two Netlist memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings intact.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.vsMeridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate Meridian International’s 11,192,689 patent covering a stackable storage system with a sliding latch. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims.
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.