US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 149 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Aug 30, 2024
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
· PGR2024-00050
The PTAB decided to institute PGR proceedings, finding that the Petitioner successfully overcame arguments of Examiner error regarding prior art combinations and claim construction issues. The dispute centers on fire-resistant wall assemblies and truss hangers, with the Board issuing preliminary determinations on key terms like 'planar extension plate' and 'bounding.'
patent denied · Aug 30, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01386
Western Digital Technologies' IPR petition against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the argument that substituting CoFeB for Fe would be obvious based on prior art teachings regarding amorphous versus crystalline structures.
patent denied · Aug 30, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01384
Western Digital Technologies' IPR challenge against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, specifically rejecting arguments based on barrier height optimization.
patent instituted · Aug 30, 2024
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01373
The PTAB granted institution of trial in this IPR concerning digital camera image processing and aberration correction. The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness arguments combining prior art references (Niikawa and Enomoto).
patent final · Aug 30, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01362
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art references (Willgert, Mooney, Holloway, Pitroda). The Board adopted the Petitioner's functional interpretation of 'RFID transponder data,' confirming that mobile devices can emulate RFID functionality without physical hardware limitations.
patent final · Aug 30, 2024
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
· IPR2024-01361
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 30, 2024
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01346
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
patent denied · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
patent · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
patent instituted · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
patent · Aug 28, 2024
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
· IPR2024-01352
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
patent · Aug 28, 2024
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
· IPR2024-01352
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01337
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2024-01277
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
patent · Aug 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01337
Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2024-01277
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent denied · Aug 28, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
· IPR2024-01315
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01337
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
