US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 153 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Aug 22, 2024
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01308
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for Genius Sports Ltd.'s claims against SportsCastr Inc. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog) taught or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependents based on the preliminary record. This sets a significant hurdle for SportsCastr's patent validity in digital media streaming technology.
patent instituted · Aug 22, 2024
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01305
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against SportsCastr Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board found that claims 1-9 were obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically demonstrating how known techniques could reduce data latency in live sports content delivery.
patent denied · Aug 22, 2024
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
· IPR2024-01253
The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha Media. The denial was based on a prior district court finding that the challenged patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 22, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01334
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
patent final · Aug 22, 2024
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01308
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board relied heavily on the combination of Ellis and Spivey to establish obviousness for Claim 1, particularly regarding low-latency data delivery via uniquely addressable event sockets.
patent final · Aug 22, 2024
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01305
The PTAB found claims 1-7 unpatentable over a combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog, concluding that the claimed live video streaming system was obvious to a POSA. The Board specifically held that Spivey's topic queues satisfy the definition of an 'event socket.'
patent · Aug 21, 2024
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request to Biofrontera in IPR2024-01312, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence. The petitioner must respond within five business days.
patent · Aug 21, 2024
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
Biofrontera’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s obviousness finding on its photodynamic‑therapy illumination patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the agreed‑upon claim construction was applied and that the prior‑art combination renders the claims obvious. The Director’s request for review was denied.
patent · Aug 21, 2024
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
patent instituted · Aug 21, 2024
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
Biofrontera's IPR challenge against Sun Pharmaceutical regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Lundahl and Larsen, focusing on combining prior art elements for flexible device design.
patent final · Aug 21, 2024
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references (Lundahl and Larsen) rendered the illuminator system obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
patent · Aug 20, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-01330
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 20, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-01330
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
patent · Aug 20, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-01330
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.
patent · Aug 20, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-01330
Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Aug 20, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01326
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent instituted · Aug 20, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-01330
The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.
patent denied · Aug 20, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01327
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 20, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-01330
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
patent · Aug 16, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01317
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 16, 2024
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01263
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
patent · Aug 16, 2024
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01263
Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 16, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01317
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
