US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 154 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Aug 16, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01317
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent · Aug 16, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01317
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
patent null · Aug 16, 2024
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01263
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
patent · Aug 16, 2024
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01262
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 16, 2024
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01262
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2024
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-01292
Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Aug 15, 2024
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-01292
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
patent · Aug 15, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01314
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.
patent · Aug 15, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01313
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent · Aug 15, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01314
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
patent · Aug 15, 2024
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-01292
Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Aug 15, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01314
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.
patent instituted · Aug 15, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01314
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned for the IPR institution on 20 claims of Stellar's '910 patent. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness to overcome the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, allowing the substantive challenge to proceed.
patent denied · Aug 15, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01314
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions IPR against Stellar LLC. Institution was ultimately denied, aligning with prior findings that weighed factors against proceeding.
patent denied · Aug 15, 2024
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
· IPR2024-01290
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
patent · Aug 14, 2024
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01266
3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
patent · Aug 14, 2024
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01276
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 14, 2024
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01265
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 14, 2024
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01265
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.
patent · Aug 14, 2024
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00996
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
patent · Aug 14, 2024
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00995
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
patent · Aug 14, 2024
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00996
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 14, 2024
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00995
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
patent · Aug 14, 2024
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00995
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
