US PTAB IP Litigation
2,587 annotated decisions
Page 13 of 108 · 2,587 total
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's targeted advertising patent (8249932) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petition cites combinations of existing technology in ad serving and network redirection to invalidate the patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent 8332454, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Amidon, Wong, and Gogic. The PTAB institution decision was strongly favored due to compelling merits and favorable parallel litigation status.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. challenged Sitnet, LLC's patent (9877345), arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition details multiple grounds of obviousness based on combining known concepts in situational awareness systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent via an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that known concepts regarding location tracking and message boards render the claimed invention predictable and trivial to implement.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's e-cigarette patent (US 11,606,981) on multiple grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Petition argues that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features of the vaping device readily apparent. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation and ITC investigations between the parties.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. initiated an IPR challenging patent 8320566 owned by Entropic Communications LLC, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Cleveland/Hayashino and Scheim/Tzannes, to demonstrate non-patentability in the field of OFDMA/Scrambling.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing that combinations of prior art references render the technology obvious. The petitioner focused on combining Astala/Shahoian for gesture recognition and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov for pressure determination techniques.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology initiated an IPR challenging the validity of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9460037, arguing that the claimed USB hub features are obvious. The petition focuses on combining prior art (Chang and Chang II) to demonstrate predictable design choices in computer networking hardware.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an opening petition to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587, challenging its validity under Section 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that the patent's claims are obvious when combining various prior art references like Fiedler and Broussard.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. challenged Entropic Communications LLC's patent (8631450) in a Petition, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board found institution warranted based on favorable application of the Fintiv and Advanced Bionics tests.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR, arguing that claims 1 and 6 were obvious over combinations of Wainner, Bocci, and Kamite. The Board found the merits strong and ruled to institute the proceeding, noting prior art was not substantively analyzed by the Examiner.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR petition, arguing that claims 1 and 6 are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining Wainner/Bocci or Kamite/Bocci renders the claimed network technology conventional and predictable.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Entropic Communications' patent 8363681, targeting network synchronization and ranging methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art standards like IEEE802.3ah, Shvodian, Frei, and Ovadia. This institutional decision sets up a detailed examination of technical obviousness in wireless communications.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
Dell Inc. et al. v.--
Dell Inc. et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR2024-00564, challenging SOFTEX's '649 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103). The Board found that the Becton factors strongly favored institution, despite some Fintiv factors weighing against denial.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenges the validity of Monarch Networking Solutions' '845 patent, asserting that claims related to IPv6/IPv4 transition and NAT are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references (Li, Li-2, Paunikar, Wu) to demonstrate the lack of nonobviousness in networking technology.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.