Torras and Co-Petitioners File Parallel IPR and PGR Petitions Against All 39 Claims of a Rokform Magnetic Phone Case Patent.

The parties and the patent

The petitioners are Shenzhen Torras Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Lechuang Tiancheng Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Ruixin Digital Technology Co, Ltd., and Shanghai Kuke Network Technology Co., Ltd. The patent owner is Rokform IP LLC. U.S. Patent 12,656,835, Case and Mount System for Handheld Electronic Device, issued June 16, 2026. The petitions say the '835 patent and the related U.S. Patent 11,775,019 are asserted in consolidated cases in the Eastern District of Texas, Rokform LLC v. Shenzhen Torras Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00052-JRG (the lead case), and No. 2:26-cv-00050-JRG, both filed January 22, 2026, and they attach a consolidated amended complaint filed June 18, 2026. No. 2:26-cv-00050 was filed against Shenzhen Ruixin Digital Technology Co, Ltd. and Shanghai Kuke Network Technology Co., Ltd. The petitions also say an IPR petition was filed against the '019 patent on October 2, 2026; the Board's records list it as IPR2027-00003.

What the patent covers

Claim 1 covers a mountable case for a handheld electronic device with a body that has a rear wall, a perimeter wall, and a beveled surface between their exterior surfaces, where the rear wall's exterior has two portions offset in thickness. An exterior-facing component with a cavity is removably received in a receiving space defined by a recessed surface of the rear wall that faces away from the device, and its exterior surface is offset from at least one of the rear wall's two exterior portions. At least one magnet is held in the cavity, with one face toward the device and the other toward the exterior-facing component, which covers it. The cavity is formed at least in part by a curved outer wall next to the magnet's outer edge, and the magnet is configured to attach the case to a magnetic structure.

The IPR petition

The IPR petition argues that claims 1 to 39 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over U.S. Publication 2011/0192857 (Rothbaum857), with additional grounds combining Rothbaum857 with Korean Publication KR101020434B1 (Byun) for claims 1, 7, 19, 20, 22, and 31, and with U.S. Publication 2011/0252609 (Rothbaum609) for claims 6, 12, and 36. It says each reference was published before the earliest priority date claimed on the patent and that none was considered during prosecution. An IPR may raise only patents and printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, 35 U.S.C. 311(b).

The PGR petition

The PGR petition argues that the earlier applications in the priority chain, the application filed August 23, 2012 and provisionals filed January 12 and May 31, 2012, do not provide written description support for the claimed exterior-facing component. On that basis it argues the claims are anticipated by the 2013 publication of the 2012 application, are obvious over Rothbaum857 and other art, and lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). A PGR petition must be filed within nine months after the patent issues, 35 U.S.C. 321(c). PGR is available only for patents subject to the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act sec. 6(f)(2)(A), which reach any patent that contains or contained at any time a claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, AIA sec. 3(n)(1).

What it means

The two petitions are framed as alternatives: the petitioners ask the Board to institute the PGR if it finds at least one claim lacks support in the 2012 application, and the IPR otherwise. Their ranking notice puts the PGR first. The timing of the IPR turns on the same question: an IPR petition ordinarily cannot be filed until nine months after a patent issues, 35 U.S.C. 311(c), but that limit does not apply to a patent that is not subject to the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions, AIA Technical Corrections Act sec. 1(d)(1), and the ranking notice relies on that exception. The notice cites Samsung Electronics Co. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, PGR2022-00034, Paper 11 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2022), where the Board instituted a PGR and denied a parallel IPR after finding the patent was not entitled to a pre-AIA filing date. The standards differ: an IPR requires a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner prevails on at least one claim, 35 U.S.C. 314(a), and a PGR requires that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. 324(a).

What to watch next

Watch for notices according filing dates to the petitions, Rokform's preliminary responses, due three months after those notices under 37 CFR 42.107(b) and 42.207(b), and any motion to stay the Texas cases.