• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
166 results

DEXCOM, INC. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

Docket IPR2022-00605, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 15, 2022)
Cynthia Hardman, Jeffrey Fredman, Ryan Flax, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
10945649
Patent Owner Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Petitioner DEXCOM, INC.
cite Cite Docket

29 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 29 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2023)
Petitioner, supported by Dr. Fletcher’s testimony, establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “looking to minimize pain by providing automatic needle-based insertion of a medical device (such as a glucose sensor [as taught in Brister]) would have logically considered Gravesen’s apparatus.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 23; Pet. 4.
Rather than according the limitation no patentable weight, we view it as broadly covering all ways of configuring the compression spring to retract the second slidable body and the needle while the glucose sensor remains at the insertion site.
As an initial matter, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s arguments that the compression spring is configured to achieve at least some of the recited functions, i.e., to expand and to retract the second slidable body and the needle in a linear direction away from the insertion site.
In sum, we find that the compression spring in the proposed Gravesen/Brister device described in the Petition is in fact “configured to expand and to retract the second slidable body and the needle ... while the glucose sensor remains at the insertion site” without any additional structure.
Here, the Reply argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used friction to retain a sensor at the insertion site, and would have understood how to use Gravesen’s “stages” to implement a push rod, and cites Dr. Fletcher’s testimony for support.
cite Cite Document

28 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 28 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2023)
Now -- MS. HARDMAN: Counsel, in the petitioner's reply on page nine, there's a statement that a POSITA would understand the portion of the interior of Gravesen's housing shown in its figures to be an alcove and thus a recess.
But since they made this argument in their response in our reply, Dr. Fletcher explained in his supplemental declaration at length why POSITA would have naturally combined that push rod with the Gravesen embodiment.
Patent 10,945,649 B2 acknowledged the fact that Petitioner's POSITA is a college grad with one year of design experience, and they were doing a complete refabrication of the Gravesen combination of figures 1 and 9, which already started off with 10 substitutions or deletions.
The -- like this started with the last point the cylindrical shape and counsel properly said under Phillips we look at the intrinsic record, but patent owner continues to run from its own specification and the 1300 embodiment.
It was saying you have a skilled artisan read Yodfat in one room, walks down the hall and tells their friends, say, hey, this reference uses a circular, centrally located, recessed rotor.
cite Cite Document

24 Order Other: Order Setting Oral Argument

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 24 Order Other - Order Setting Oral Argument (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2023)
“The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to afford the parties the opportunity to preview (but not argue) the issues to be discussed at the hearing, and to seek the Board’s guidance as to particular
During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.
If at any time during the hearing, counsel encounters technical or other difficulties that fundamentally undermine counsel’s ability to adequately represent its client, please let the panel know immediately, and adjustments will be made.
The Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.
The Board will grant up to fifteen minutes of additional argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule.
cite Cite Document

10 Institution Decision Grant: Institution Decision

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 10 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2022)

cite Cite Document

11 Order Other: Scheduling Order

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 11 Order Other - Scheduling Order (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2022)

cite Cite Document

4 Notice Notice filing date accorded: Notice NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED...

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 4 Notice Notice filing date accorded - Notice NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION AND TIME FOR FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE (P....

cite Cite Document

15 Pet Reply to PO Resp: Petitioners Reply Brief

Document IPR2022-00605, No. 15 Pet Reply to PO Resp - Petitioners Reply Brief (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2023)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12 >>