US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 177 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00984
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
patent final · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00959
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
patent · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent null · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
patent · Jun 18, 2024
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
· IPR2024-00892
BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.
patent instituted · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
patent instituted · Jun 18, 2024
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
· IPR2024-00892
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
patent null · Jun 17, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00922
Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00922
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
patent · Jun 15, 2024
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
· PGR2024-00036
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
patent denied · Jun 15, 2024
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
· PGR2024-00036
Bestway challenged Intex's patent, but the PTAB denied institution because Intex had statutorily disclaimed all claims. The Board also declined to enter an adverse judgment against Intex.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01026
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
patent denied · Jun 14, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01024
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
patent null · Jun 14, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.
patent null · Jun 14, 2024
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
· IPR2024-00975
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent instituted · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
