US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 159 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent terminated or settled · Aug 5, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00861
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
patent null · Aug 5, 2024
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00898
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
patent null · Aug 5, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00868
Ericsson Inc. et al. filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against XR Communications LLC's patent related to wireless communications. The petition challenges key claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the technology is obvious over prior art references Trigui and Rudrapatna. The grounds focus on the predictability of adopting a 'cross' connect approach for MIMO transceivers.
patent denied · Aug 5, 2024
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
· IPR2024-00877
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent denied · Aug 5, 2024
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
· IPR2024-00876
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
patent instituted · Aug 5, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00868
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
patent final · Aug 5, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00868
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
patent · Aug 4, 2024
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
· IPR2024-00787
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement agreement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2024
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
· IPR2024-00787
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00787 after settling their dispute with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding, which had not yet been instituted.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2024
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
· IPR2024-00787
Hulu and Capital One settled their IPR dispute with patent owner Implicit, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The Board granted motions to keep the settlement agreements confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00605
Amazon and Nokia jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024-00605 covering Nokia’s patent 10,536,714. The Board granted termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00605
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 4, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00605
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
patent instituted · Aug 4, 2024
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
· IPR2024-00787
Hulu LLC and Capital One filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Patent No. 6976248, arguing they are obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Johnson, Parthasarathy, Fowlow). The petitioner asserts that the claimed software delivery methods lack inventive step under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
patent null · Aug 4, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00604
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.
patent instituted · Aug 4, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00605
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia's video encoding patent, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'the block,' narrowing its scope to be associated with the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate.
patent instituted · Aug 4, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00604
Amazon successfully challenged 17 claims of Nokia's video compression patent via IPR, arguing obviousness over prior art. The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, particularly concerning the combination of Rusert and Karczewicz techniques.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 3, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00670
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 3, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00670
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent · Aug 3, 2024
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
· IPR2024-00646
Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.
patent · Aug 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00540
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Director Review petition to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for their IPR against InfoExpress’s network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted claim language on user authentication and ignored supporting evidence from the Krantz reference.
patent · Aug 3, 2024
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
· IPR2024-00646
The PTAB emailed counsel confirming receipt of the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00646. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Aug 3, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00670
Court decision.
patent denied · Aug 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00540
The USPTO denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of a prior institution denial in IPR2024-00540, leaving the original decision unchanged.
