US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 164 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Jul 25, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01196
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
patent denied · Jul 25, 2024
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-01144
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 25, 2024
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
· IPR2024-01213
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00978
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00978
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the PTAB review of patent 11,808,994.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
patent · Jul 23, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-01158
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi.
The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
patent instituted · Jul 23, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-01158
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 23, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-01158
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple independent and dependent claims unpatentable. The grounds were anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), based on the prior art reference Tateishi.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01205
Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01208
Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.
patent denied · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
patent null · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01208
Motorola Solutions has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Stellar, LLC's surveillance apparatus patent (9912914) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely combinations of existing prior art references related to video recording and data management.
patent null · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
patent null · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
