Litigation

Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.

final written decision; all claims unpatentable

IPR2017-01900

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2017-07-31
Terminated: 2019-02-12

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Mobile Tech, Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ InVue Security Products Inc.

Summary

Inter partes review petition filed by Mobile Tech against InVue challenging U.S. 9,478,110 B2. The Board instituted review and, in a consolidated final written decision with IPR2017-01901, held claims 1-36 unpatentable.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 9478110-ipr2017-01900 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Declaratory judgment actions: when to flip the table on a patent troll
The patent holder is the one with the patent. They're not always the one who gets to pick the courtroom.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Bolting 'on a computer' onto an abstract business process doesn't make it patentable. Most software and business-method patents that look like 'doing X on a computer' don't survive when seriously challenged under Alice.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.
What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.
Patent law glossary
Sixty-plus patent-law terms, defined in one or two sentences each, with a link to the deeper article. The universal landing pad when an article uses a term you don't know.

All resources →