US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 114 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent null · Dec 8, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2024-01257
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
patent null · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
patent null · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and others have filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,749,700 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed network scheduling and application prioritization features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Rao and Scahill.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Lenovo and Motorola challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,198,076, arguing that its claims related to power management and network prioritization are obvious. The petitioners assert that combining prior art references like Rao and Araujo with others provides predictable improvements in device functionality and battery longevity.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2024-01257
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
patent instituted · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
patent instituted · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
patent final · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01222
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
patent · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01131
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
patent · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01131
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
patent · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.
patent · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.
patent denied · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01131
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
patent · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences filed a joint notice confirming that the IPR oral hearing transcript and final written decision will be made fully public, and that specific exhibits will not remain sealed.
patent null · Dec 7, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01164
Arashi Vision (Insta360) challenged GoPro's '840 patent in the PTAB, arguing that numerous claims related to video stabilization are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references—including Bell and Shi—teach how to improve motion blur reduction and utilize temporal horizons. This petition challenges 21 specific claims based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent null · Dec 7, 2024
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
· IPR2024-01163
Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.
patent instituted · Dec 7, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01164
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in view of Bell and Shi. The Board adopted a functional construction of the key parameter.
patent instituted · Dec 7, 2024
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
· IPR2024-01163
Tommy John, Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Pakage Apparel's '974 patent based on obviousness over prior art combinations (Kitsch/Brocks). The PTAB declined discretionary denial because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to demonstrate material error in prosecution history.
patent instituted · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01131
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
patent final · Dec 7, 2024
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
· IPR2024-01163
The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.
