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
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla and patent‑assertion entity Intellectual Ventures II have jointly moved to dismiss the IPR and terminate the proceeding after resolving the dispute in a parallel district‑court case. The motion cites Board authority and the early, unbriefed status of the IPR as reasons for dismissal.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al.vsSandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s 9,827,568 patent covering a gyratory crusher shaft sleeve, arguing that all ten claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition stresses that the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,472,427, asserting that the driver‑authentication system is anticipated or obvious over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s voice‑content control patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Ocampo and Yi references. The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
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.