Barry Johnson, 920-230-9179
In a major win for Dynamic Drinkware, LLC (“Dynamic”), a three judge panel convened by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of Dynamic’s challenge to National Graphics U.S. Patent No. 6,424,467 (the “‘467 patent”) entitled High Definition Lenticular Lens. Dynamic challenged the ‘467 patent using the relatively new Inter Partes Review procedure at the USPTO on the grounds that certain of the claims were anticipated and others were obvious over several prior art patents.
The ‘467 patent was directed to a thin lenticular lens typically used in magazines and comic book covers to provide 3D and motion effects. With its elimination, Dynamic believes that its ability to use thin lens technology will allow the company to expand into new areas of promotional products. “We are pleased with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling today” said Dynamic’s President, Barry Johnson. “We hope to now be able offer more of this type of product to our clients.”
“This is a another significant victory for Dynamic”, said Pat Bergin, a shareholder at Davis & Kuelthau, s.c., who along with Matt McClean and Joe Heino, handled the IPR. “We were confident that National Graphics’ patent was invalid, and are pleased that Dynamic can now better compete and grow its business.”
Under the America Invents Act (AIA), IPR is a mechanism to challenge the validity of claims in issued U.S. Patents. The first step in this process is the filing of a formal petition with the USPTO to request a review of the patent at issue. An IPR is only instituted upon if there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is invalid. According to USPTO statistics, only about only about 22% of IPRs result in a finding that all claims are unpatentable.