Patent Cases

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01293

Bitsgap and co‑owners filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against Intercurrency Software’s foreign‑exchange trading patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the withdrawal request pending the patent owner’s mandatory notices.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.

Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2024-01290

Ubiquiti has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola Solutions petitions the PTAB to invalidate Stellar’s 10,523,901 surveillance‑camera patent, arguing all 25 claims are obvious over a mix of prior‑art references.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01293

Bitsgap and co‑owners have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software’s 2018 patent covering cross‑border currency conversion in trading platforms, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art systems.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

patent instituted · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

patent denied · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned for the IPR institution on 20 claims of Stellar's '910 patent. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness to overcome the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, allowing the substantive challenge to proceed.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

patent instituted · Aug 15, 2024

The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions IPR against Stellar LLC. Institution was ultimately denied, aligning with prior findings that weighed factors against proceeding.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

patent denied · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR challenge against Stellar, LLC's patent (10523901). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on all grounds, despite Patent Owner arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

patent denied · Aug 15, 2024

The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, citing the need to maintain system integrity.

Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2024-01290

Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 14, 2024

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001326

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 14, 2024

NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001325

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01260

3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01260

3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR for patent 7,912,257. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01266

3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01265

Court decision.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01276

3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01266

3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,262,864 before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to dismissal of the proceedings.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01265

3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01276

3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01265

3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01266

3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, and the parties seek dismissal to preserve resources.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01260

3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,912,257, leading the PTAB to dismiss the proceedings before any trial was instituted.

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01276

3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00996

Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.

Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00995

Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.