OpenSesame is a leading-edge technology company located in Portland, Oregon. In 2010, it invented and filed a patent application for an unconventional remote learning system titled “Open and Interactive E-Learning System and Method.” After a thorough examination, that application was allowed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and was issued as US Patent No. 8,784,113 (‘113 Patent).
Over the last decade, OpenSesame has flourished, largely due to its patented technology, which is used by a variety of clients including Siemens, Caterpillar, McDonald’s, and many others.
In August 2022, Go1 Pty, Ltd., an Australian corporation, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition to cancel all claims in the ‘113 Patent. Following over a year of litigation, including oral argument, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in favor of OpenSesame on February 26, 2024. Historically, the PTAB has found 70% or more of the claims it addresses in a final written decision unpatentable. Despite these odds, the PTAB upheld the validity of all claims of OpenSesame’s patent.
OpenSesame’s counsel, Bill Holbrow, commented: “We are obviously very pleased with the result. Members of the OpenSesame and Buchalter team did a great job of demonstrating the highly innovative aspects of OpenSesame’s leading-edge e-learning technology!”
OpenSesame was represented by Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, by attorneys Bill Holbrow, Jason Croft, Benjamin Deming, and Catherine Maness. Go1 Pty, Ltd., was represented by attorneys from Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and O’Melveny & Myers LLP.

Written by Bill Holbrow
Shareholder, Buchalter
You may also like…
The quiet power of confidentiality clubs in SEP litigation
In standard essential patent (SEP) disputes, especially those involving FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and...
A $10 million patent win reduced to a $1 lesson in damages
In a decision that will resonate as a stark warning to patent litigants, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...
Chevron’s ghost and the return of deference
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 US 837 (1984) instructed courts to defer to an agency’s...
Contact us to write for out Newsletter












