Straumann USA, LLC et al. v. Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.

PGR2025-00054

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00054
Filing Date
6 April 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00823

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsResonant Systems, Inc.

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.

patentIPR2024-01350

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAnonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s attempt to invalidate Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the patent description sufficiently broad to cover video data samples, defeating the obviousness challenge over prior art references.

patentIPR2025-00768

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.

patentIPR2025-01181

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Proxicom Wireless’s proximity‑based transaction patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all nine challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the claims anticipated or obvious over prior art references Perttila and Swartz.

patentIPR2025-00545

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.

Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call