Short Summary
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-01388, Tableau Software seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,712,595, which claims methods for generating interactive charts and publishing them on a second website. The petitioner relies on two sets of obviousness grounds—one based on the Rostoker reference (combined with Jou) and another on QlikView—arguing that the Board’s narrow construction of “interactive chart,” its finding that Rostoker does not disclose a second website, and its rejection of motivation to combine references are material errors. The dissenting opinion is cited as evidence of a reasonable likelihood of success. The petition requests reversal of the denial so the case can proceed to trial.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tableau Software, LLC et al. vs iCharts LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless was rejected. The Board held that Samsung waived procedural arguments and that the discretionary denial was proper under the Fintiv factors and 35 U.S.C. § 314.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR on PacifiCorp's claims against Birchtech Corp. regarding flue gas desulfurization technology, overcoming a time-bar defense raised by the Patent Owner. The Board found Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsiCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsMarlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
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.