Patent Cases

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-01066

NXP USA filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's patent claims, arguing that Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts obviousness based on combinations of prior art references related to signal processing and RF down-conversion.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01052

Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed a Petition challenging key claims of GoPro's patent covering horizon leveling and video stabilization techniques. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Thomason, Pacurariu, Watanabe, Voss, and Derbanne.

patent · Jun 20, 2024

VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.

· IPR2024-01045

VusionGroup SA et al. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, challenging 21 claims related to retail inventory management. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references using computer vision techniques.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01042

Verizon Wireless filed an IPR petition challenging 40 claims of a network service plan provisioning system, asserting obviousness over prior art references Poh, Maes, and Burnett. The challenge centers on whether combining these existing technologies would motivate the claimed dynamic policy updates in wireless networks.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01041

Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00984

Arashi Vision challenges GoPro's '413 patent claims 1-20 under § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed non-uniform image scaling techniques are obvious combinations of existing prior art, specifically citing Meulen and Chao. This petition targets core functionality in panoramic image processing.

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00960

Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00959

Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging patent 7428082, arguing that several claims are unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga to demonstrate obviousness. The PTAB found factors favoring institution, allowing the review process to proceed.

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00958

Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.

patent denied · Jun 20, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01052

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.

VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.

· IPR2024-01045

VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01041

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01042

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. successfully challenged Headwater Research LLC's patent (8924543) on grounds of obviousness, leading to the institution of the IPR proceeding. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references Poh and Maes rendered the claimed network service provisioning system obvious.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00984

The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00959

Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00960

Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.

patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00958

Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01052

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).

patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00984

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.

patent final · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00960

The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.

patent final · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00959

The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.

patent final · Jun 20, 2024

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00958

The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

patent remanded · Jun 20, 2024

Ajinomoto Co., INC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 44767216

Ajinomoto Co. appealed the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 4039/CHENP/2014). The core issue was whether the Authority complied with Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires examination of amended specifications in a manner similar to the original specification. The High Court found that this procedure had not been followed.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001435

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001434

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. The court denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC), as claim 1 and its dependent claims extended beyond the disclosure of the original application. Abbott was ordered to bear the defendants' costs, with the value of the dispute set at EUR 4,000,000.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001433

ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others

ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-001432

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.