Executive Summary
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Solventum Corporation vs M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.vsEnveric Biosciences Canada, Inc.
Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Enveric Biosciences' 2024 patent covering halogenated psilocybin derivatives, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement for all 26 claims.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
Capital One, N.A. et al.vsWapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning WEC Energy Group, citing settlement and statutory provisions.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc.vsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
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.