Avidbots Corporation v. Brain Corporation

Avidbots Corporation, a Canadian company specializing in the design and manufacture of fully autonomous floor-scrubbing robots (such as Neo, Neo 2W, and Kas) for various commercial environments including airports, warehouses, and retail facilities, initiated an inter partes review (IPR) against US patent 10823576. The respondent, Brain Corporation, is a San Diego-based technology company that develops intelligent, autonomous navigation systems and AI software, known as BrainOS, for commercial autonomous mobile robots (AMRs). Brain Corporation partners with major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Tennant and Nilfisk to integrate its autonomy software into their cleaning machines, rather than manufacturing the robots themselves.

The patent at issue, US patent 10823576, titled "Systems and methods for a robot to travel within an environment and simultaneously generate a graphical map of the environment," broadly covers technology for robots to map their surroundings using probabilistic equations and uncertainty principles. This IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01603, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), is directly linked to ongoing patent infringement litigation where Brain Corporation has accused Avidbots of infringing several patents, including the '576 patent, in a district court case (1:24-cv-12569 in the Northern District of Illinois). Avidbots' IPR filing is a defensive strategy to challenge the validity of Brain Corporation's patent.

The procedural posture of this IPR is notable as institution was denied on "procedural grounds" through a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on March 9, 2026. While the specific detailed reasoning for this particular denial is not publicly available, such discretionary denials by the Director of the USPTO can arise from various policy considerations, including issues like "settled expectations" for older patents, or other procedural irregularities. In the related district court litigation, Avidbots has asserted that Brain Corporation allegedly made false claims to small entity status when paying fees for the '576 patent, which could potentially be a factor in a procedural denial. The competitive landscape between Avidbots and Brain Corporation, both significant players in the burgeoning autonomous cleaning robot market, underscores the strategic importance of this patent dispute.

Brain Corporation initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Avidbots Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case number 1:24-cv-12569. This litigation asserts infringement of five patents, including the '576 patent, which Avidbots subsequently challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) before the PTAB.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Brain Corporation filed its complaint for patent infringement on December 6, 2024, alleging that Avidbots' autonomous floor-scrubbing robots infringe five patents related to autonomous navigation, robotic mapping, and optical object detection. Specifically, the complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,823,576, 10,274,325, and others, claiming Avidbots directly and indirectly infringes through the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of its accused products.
  • On January 2, 2025, Avidbots was granted an extension to respond to the complaint, with a new deadline of March 3, 2025.
  • Avidbots filed counterclaims against Brain for infringement of five of Avidbots' own patents on May 19, 2025.
  • By at least January 19, 2026, Avidbots had submitted its final invalidity contentions in the district court case.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Avidbots filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPR. This motion was filed before the institution decision in the IPR. District courts in the Northern District of Illinois often deny pre-institution motions to stay without prejudice, with the possibility of granting a subsequent motion if IPR is instituted.
  • The district court, in ruling on the parties' planning meeting, declined Brain's request to set a trial date or any date past the submission of claim construction briefs on May 20, 2026. The court agreed with Avidbots that it was unknown when a claim construction order would issue and whether fact discovery would need to be reopened.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • As of May 29, 2026, the claim construction briefs were due on May 20, 2026. A claim construction order has not yet been issued.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • Avidbots' invalidity contentions, including arguments regarding Brain Corporation's alleged false claims to small entity status when paying fees for the '576 patent, are a significant part of the discovery process and strategy. Avidbots brought this issue to Brain's attention in its January 14, 2026, contentions.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their Effect:

  • Avidbots Corporation filed IPR2025-01603 challenging U.S. Patent 10,823,576 on November 5, 2025.
  • Brain Corporation submitted Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices in the IPR on November 20, 2025, confirming the related district court litigation (1:24-cv-12569).
  • Institution of the IPR was denied on procedural grounds through a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on March 9, 2026.
  • The denial of institution in the IPR means that Avidbots' challenge to the '576 patent at the PTAB was unsuccessful, and the district court litigation will proceed without the benefit of a PTAB validity determination for that patent. However, Avidbots has raised the issue of Brain Corporation's alleged false small entity status in the district court, which was a factor in the IPR discretionary denial arguments. The PTAB decision documents indicate that Avidbots' exhibits in the IPR included docket sheets and other filings from the district court litigation, demonstrating the interconnectedness of these proceedings.

• Present Posture:

  • The district court litigation is ongoing, and as of the current date (May 29, 2026), there is no scheduled trial date. The parties were amenable to participating in settlement discussions as of April 1, 2025. A status hearing for the case was scheduled for May 29, 2026, at 10:00 AM before Judge M. David Weisman.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel. Note an important framing point: in the IPR (IPR2025-01603), the "plaintiff-like" party is petitioner Avidbots, but the prior section already covered Avidbots' district-court defense team. Since the underlying infringement case is Brain Corporation v. Avidbots (1:24-cv-12569), the plaintiff is Brain Corporation — let me confirm who represents it.

Good leads. The plaintiff (Brain Corporation) appears to have its own distinct counsel from Avidbots' defense team. Let me pin down names, firms, and roles.

Confirmed the local counsel. Now let me verify the pro hac vice counsel and their firms.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff (Brain Corporation)

Framing note first: "Plaintiff" depends on which proceeding you mean. In the IPR itself (IPR2025‑01603), the plaintiff-side party is petitioner Avidbots Corporation (counsel: Brian Mark Buroker et al., Gibson Dunn — already covered in the prior "Defendant representatives" section). The plaintiff in the underlying infringement action — Brain Corporation v. Avidbots Corporation et al., No. 1:24‑cv‑12569 (N.D. Ill., filed Dec. 6, 2024) — is Brain Corporation, and that team is distinct from Avidbots' defense team. That's the set below.

Contradiction to flag: the prior section describes a "status hearing … before Judge M. David Weisman." Weisman is the designated Magistrate Judge; the presiding District Judge is Jeremy C. Daniel (Justia docket 1:24-cv-12569). Also, the prior section dates the institution denial to Mar. 9, 2026; IP Verse lists the institution decision date as Mar. 10, 2026 for IPR2025‑01603 (the sibling IPR2025‑01601 shows a Mar. 23, 2026 Director denial) — treat the exact date as unconfirmed.

Core team (Brain Corporation as plaintiff, N.D. Ill.)

What the record shows, and its limits

• Basis for the appearance entries: the Justia docket sheet for 1:24‑cv‑12569 — Dkt. 5 (Tottis appearance), Dkt. 6 (Stolte appearance), Dkt. 8 (service by Tottis "on behalf of All Plaintiffs"), Dkt. 9–12 (pro hac vice motions), Dkt. 13 (motions granted), Dkt. 14 (extension motion by Powell).
• Firm-level confirmation: an Ex Parte complaint analysis of 1:24‑cv‑12569 states: "Plaintiff's Counsel: TottisLaw; Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP." That is consistent with the docket pattern (Chicago local counsel + California pro hac vice counsel).
• One unaccounted appearance: Dkt. 11 (12/18/2024 pro hac vice motion) appears in the docket snapshot without a captured filer name, so I cannot name a fourth out-of-state attorney. I am not filling that gap with a guess.
• No in-house counsel identified. Brain Corporation did not appear through a named in-house attorney in the publicly retrievable entries.
• Staleness caveat: the freely available docket was last retrieved Jan. 2, 2025. Later 2025–2026 appearances, withdrawals, or substitutions (including any new counsel for the Markman briefing) are not reflected here. Filings are not sealed to my knowledge, but a PACER pull through today's date would be needed for a complete current Rule 83.5/CM‑ECF appearance list.

Cross-proceeding relevance

Brain Corporation's defense/PTO team (as Patent Owner in the Avidbots IPRs) appears to overlap with its district‑court plaintiff team via Daniel Hughes, with the IPR2025‑01603/‑01604 filings listing "Hughes, Daniel et al." as respondent counsel (IP Verse, IPR2025‑01603; IPR2025‑01604). This matters strategically: the same Knobbe Martens group that drafted Brain's infringement case also rode herd on the IPR oppositions, and the discretionary‑denial record in those IPRs draws heavily on district‑court discovery (e.g., Ex1018 = Dkt. 126; Ex1026 = Dkt. 145 of 1:24‑cv‑12569).

I'll research the defense side. Note the framing tension: the IPR "respondent" is Brain Corporation (patent owner), but the underlying infringement action's defendant is Avidbots — and the prior section already covered Brain's team. Let me determine which set the task needs and pin down Avidbots' counsel.

Now let me pin down Avidbots' defense/petitioner team and the district-court docket entries.

Counsel of Record — Defendant(s)

Framing note (read first). Because this docket is a PTAB proceeding, "defendant" is ambiguous, and the two meanings point at different teams:

• In IPR2025‑01603 itself, the party in the defendant's chair is the patent owner/respondent, Brain Corporation — already covered in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section (Knobbe Martens: Daniel Hughes et al.).
• In the underlying infringement action — Brain Corporation v. Avidbots Corporation et al., No. 1:24‑cv‑12569 (N.D. Ill., filed Dec. 6, 2024) — the defendants are Avidbots Corporation and Avidbots USA Corporation (Justia docket). Avidbots is also the petitioner in the IPR.

This section therefore covers the Avidbots side, i.e., the actual defendants in the infringement case and petitioner in the IPR — the mirror image of the prior section. I flag up front that the district‑court appearance list for Avidbots was not retrievable from the free sources; the names below are grounded in the PTAB record and in Avidbots' parallel patent litigation, and I have marked each entry's source and limits.

Defendant-side counsel (as currently documented)

What the record shows — and what it does not

• PTAB record (solid): In IPR2025‑01603 the petitioner is captioned "Avidbots Corporation et al." (RPX Empower: Avidbots Corp. et al v. Brain Corporation IPR of '576), and petitioner counsel is Gibson Dunn's Brian Buroker. The "et al." is consistent with the two district‑court defendants (Avidbots Corporation + Avidbots USA Corporation), but the PTAB listing does not itemize them.
• District‑court record (gap): The only free docket snapshot I could reach for 1:24‑cv‑12569 was last retrieved Jan. 2, 2025 (Justia) — i.e., before Avidbots' answer/appearances. The snippet captured the plaintiff's "Represented By" list (Tottis, Stolte, Swaroop, Uribe, Hughes, Powell) but not the defendant's. So I cannot confirm from the docket who filed Avidbots' Rule 83.5 appearances, and N.D. Ill. local counsel for Avidbots is unidentified on this record. A PACER pull through today's date is required.
• Corroborating pattern, different plaintiff: Avidbots' documented patent‑defense representation (Gibson Dunn, with Palo Alto‑based lawyers) appears in Nilfisk Inc. v. Avidbots Corp. — a separate action, not Brain v. Avidbots. Treat it as evidence of Avidbots' regular defense counsel and of a likely unified Gibson Dunn defense team, not as proof of appearance in 1:24‑cv‑12569.
• No sealed‑filing inference drawn: I found no indication the 1:24‑cv‑12569 appearances are sealed; the limitation is docket‑retrieval coverage, not sealing.

Cross‑proceeding relevance and flagged contradictions

• Same Gibson Dunn group fights both fronts for Avidbots. Buroker & Gibson Dunn run Avidbots' IPR campaign (‑01601/‑01603/‑01604) — the PTAB counterpart to its N.D. Ill. defense — while Brain's Knobbe Martens team (Daniel Hughes) appears as respondent counsel (IP Verse, IPR2025‑01601). This is the mirror of the point made in the plaintiff section: the two firms litigate each other across forums.
• Contradiction on the IPR institution date. The prior section dates the discretionary denial to Mar. 9, 2026; RPX Empower gives the institution decision date as 03/10/2026 for IPR2025‑01603 (and the ‑01604 sibling shows a Mar. 23, 2026 Director denial, per Docket Alarm). Exact date remains unconfirmed. RPX also lists the '576 IPR filing date as 11/06/2025, versus the metadata's 2025‑11‑05 — a one‑day discrepancy worth noting.
• Contradiction already carried from the prior section on the judge: the presiding District Judge is Jeremy C. Daniel, with M. David Weisman as designated Magistrate Judge — not "Judge Weisman" as presiding.

Bottom line: the only defendant‑side counsel I can affirmatively source is Brian M. Buroker (Gibson Dunn, Washington, D.C.) as petitioner/lead counsel for Avidbots in the PTAB, with Evan T. Kratzer (Gibson Dunn, Palo Alto) documented as Avidbots' patent‑litigation counsel in parallel matters. The district‑court appearances and any Avidbots local counsel in 1:24‑cv‑12569 could not be verified from available sources and should be confirmed via PACER before being relied on.