NVIDIA Corporation v. Neural AI, LLC

3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.

3Shape A/S filed an IPR petition challenging Medit Corporation’s patent on digital dentistry technology. The petitioner argues that the claimed 3D scanning methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on combining prior art systems.

Luxottica of America Inc. et al.vsE-Vision Optics, LLC

The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combinations of prior art references, such as Howell-596 and Howell-158, rendered the claimed features in smart eyeglasses obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

Google LLCvsProxense, LLC

Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.

Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.

Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.