Short Summary
Straumann USA has filed a post‑grant review petition against Smart Denture Conversions’ U.S. Patent 12,156,781 covering dental implant fasteners. The petition alleges indefiniteness, lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references. Straumann seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all 16 claims.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,156,781, Straumann USA, LLC challenges the patent owned by Smart Denture Conversions, LLC. The patent claims a screw‑attached dental coping system and methods. Straumann contends that claims 6 and 10–16 are indefinite under §112(b) because they rely on functional language without structural limitations. It further argues that the specification fails to provide adequate written description or enablement for any of the 1–16 claims under §112(a). Additionally, the petition asserts that the asserted claims are obvious under §103 in view of the Bernhard, Poovey, Gracco, and Derey references. The Board is asked to institute the review and cancel all claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Straumann USA, LLC et al. vs Smart Denture Conversions, LLC. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Eunsung Global Corp.vsHydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317. The request emphasizes protection of settlement amounts and private banking information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully secured institutional status in an IPR against DexCom, Inc., regarding continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art references anticipate or render obvious key claims related to transcutaneous sensors and drift profiles.
Guardant Health, Inc.vsTempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email to counsel confirming receipt of Netlist’s Director Review request in PGR2025‑00071. Samsung may submit a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving Sinclair Pharma and others versus Hydrafacial, staying the proceeding after the ITC affirmed the claims’ validity and commercial success.
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.