The USPTO rejected a request from Scottsdale, Arizona-based Axon Enterprise, Inc. to re-consider its application for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the validity of certain patents held by Digital Ally, a company based in Lenexa, Kansas that produces body-worn and vehicular cameras for use in law enforcement.
Inter partes review is a statutory process administered by the USPTO that allows parties to challenge the validity of one or more claims in a patent through an application to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The USPTO will initiate a review if the challenging party can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging the patent.
Axon initially filed for IPR in December 2016, and, on July 6, 2017, the USPTO released its decision denying review on the grounds that the request was deficient. This request to reconsider followed and the USPTO has recently rejected IPR for a second time, citing Axon’s attempt to present new arguments or evidence through the reconsideration request. Axon is now barred from filing any additional challenges through the IPR process.
In a separate infringement proceeding in the United States District Court in Kansas, Digital Ally is seeking $204 million from Axon for willful infringement of Digital Ally’s auto-activation patents. Axon maintains that the USPTO’s decisions on its IPR applications do not necessarily mean that Digital Ally will be successful in its infringement lawsuit, and Axon is not yet liable for any damages as a result of the USPTO’s IPR decision.
In a press release following the USPTO’s decision, Digital Ally suggested that the IPR decision limits the ability of competitors to establish the invalidity of Digital Ally’s auto-activation patents and may serve as a prediction for the outcome of the company’s ongoing infringement action against Axon.
Body-worn cameras of the kind at issue in these proceedings are the subject of significant debate regarding their usefulness in recording and reducing uses of force by law enforcement.
Authors: Jaclyn Tilak and Wes Dutcher-Walls, 2018/2019 Articling Student-at-law
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be…
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers…
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a…
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its…
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In…
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…
