Category: PTAB Review

  • Weekly PTAB Review: Application 17/412,321 – Toshiba Corp

    This week we look at a recent PTAB decision. I pulled one random case from the Board’s docket published over the last few days, where IP Copilot was not used. In Ex parte Hagiwara & Sakurada, the PTAB affirmed §103 rejections for a ThMn₁₂/TbCu7-class magnet composition that included small-amount Be and B ranges. The Board agreed with…

  • Weekly PTAB Review: Application 16/306,266 – BASF SE

    This week we look at a recent PTAB decision. I pulled one random case from the Board’s docket published over the last few days, where IP Copilot was not used. In Ex parte Stuhrmann (Appeal 2025‑000356), the PTAB affirmed §103 rejections on claims to a photocurable ceramic formulation for additive manufacturing (see decision here). The Board…

  • Weekly PTAB Review: Application 16/720,969 – Cerner Innovation (Oracle)

    This week we look at a recent PTAB decision. I pulled one at random from the Board’s docket. The case is Appeal 2025-001075 on Application 16/720,969. The decision’s notification date is September 12, 2025; the real party in interest is Oracle International Corporation. IP Copilot Invalidity Search To start, we ran an Invalidity Chart (used…

  • Weekly PTAB Review: Application 17/973,274 – Oracle

    One capability sets IP Copilot apart: prior-art search. It’s the engine under every feature. By modeling how ideas connect across papers, products, and people, we help teams see their landscape—and spot the next breakthrough. This week we look at a recent PTAB decision. I pulled one at random from the Board’s docket. The case is…