Executive 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.
Related Cases
Micron Technology Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests a Director Review to overturn the PTAB's denial of institution for an IPR against its DRAM patents, citing national‑security importance, examiner error, and improper reliance on settled expectations.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd.vsShenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al.vsRazdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of RazDog’s cloud‑based content‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over Darnell, Kim, and Dasgupta references. The petition stresses favorable discretionary factors for institution.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al.vsLiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '8612888 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petition argues that the claimed digital media management methods are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Martinez. This challenges core aspects of the patent's validity in computing devices technology.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a Petition challenging 24 claims of DexCom's '528 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness. The challenge focuses on the combination of real-time user settable low glucose alarms with predicted non-user settable low glucose alarms in CGM systems.
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.