Short Summary
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for rehearing, NVIDIA Corporation seeks to overturn the PTAB Director’s July 31, 2025 decision that denied institution of an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,867 and granted a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). NVIDIA argues that the Director failed to consider critical evidence showing that the parallel district‑court trial would not occur until after the statutory deadline for a final written decision, and that the patent has never been commercialized, undermining any settled expectations of the patent owner. By highlighting these oversights, NVIDIA requests that the Board reconsider and institute the IPR.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in NVIDIA Corporation vs Neural AI, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al.vsPantech Corporation
OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution based on General Plastic and Fintiv factors.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.
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.