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
Arm LimitedvsICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00566 concerning patent 9,367,657. The original institution decision remains in effect.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLCvsTecan Group AG
Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.
Cipla LimitedvsGilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360)vsGoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsB.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
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.