US PTAB IP Litigation
2,587 annotated decisions
Page 14 of 108 · 2,587 total
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (10536714) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed method for improving motion vector prediction was already known through prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, and Nakamura. This is an opening petition challenging a core technology in video compression standards.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's HEVC patent (US 10,536,714) on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petitioner argues that prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, Nakamura, and WD4 teach the claimed methods for reducing redundant motion vector candidates in video coding.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
T-Mobile and other petitioners successfully petitioned to challenge Wireless Alliance's patent (9144106) regarding carrier management methods. The petition raised grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art from Lee et al. and Kim et al., leading the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenges iQar Inc.'s patent (10850616) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Koebler650. The petitioner argues that combining existing technologies to improve vehicle power management was predictable for a POSITA.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a patent covering water flow regulation in plumbing fixtures, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Schuster and rendered obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on 35 U.S.C. §102 (Anticipation) and §103 (Obviousness).
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster challenged Danco's patent covering toilet/bowl fill valve connections, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The PTAB institution decision found that the claimed quick connector features were predictable based on various prior art references.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (US 11013291) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The PTAB has instituted the proceeding, finding merit in the challenger's arguments against discretionary denial.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's '786 patent for athletic/golf footwear sole design via an IPR petition. The petitioner argued that all eight claimed features were obvious based on prior art references including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The Board subsequently instituted the proceeding.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenges Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (11064760) in an IPR petition, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over multiple prior art references. The petitioner argues the claimed features were conventional knowledge in the field of athletic positioning footwear.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour filed an IPR challenging the validity of Athalonz's athletic shoe patent (11375768). The petition asserts that various claimed features, including a gradient compression forefoot platform and uniform heel height, are obvious based on combinations of prior art.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenges the validity of North Atlantic Imports' griddle patent (10660473), asserting that core features are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of references, including Williams and May/Best, to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.