US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 179 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
· IPR2024-01457
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
· IPR2024-01456
Kangxi Communication Technologies successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., asserting that several claims related to RF switches and semiconductor devices are unpatentable. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103) over prior art references Huang and Seshimo.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR against Headwater Research's patent 10,749,700. The motion relies on statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Court decision.
patent null · Dec 8, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2024-01257
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
patent null · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01222
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 related to OLED encapsulation technology. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references involving selective deposition and barrier layer methods.
patent null · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and others have filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,749,700 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed network scheduling and application prioritization features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Rao and Scahill.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Lenovo and Motorola challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,198,076, arguing that its claims related to power management and network prioritization are obvious. The petitioners assert that combining prior art references like Rao and Araujo with others provides predictable improvements in device functionality and battery longevity.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2024-01257
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
patent instituted · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
patent instituted · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01222
Samsung Display successfully navigated a discretionary denial challenge in the IPR, leading to the institution of claims 34-46. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success based on Yamazaki/Fujimori combinations for OLED encapsulation technology.
patent instituted · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Lenovo and Motorola against Headwater Research, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
patent final · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,949,389 unpatentable. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on Kijima and Suzuki, emphasizing that the prior art did not meet the agreed-upon definition of 'planarization layer' which requires suppressing underlying topography.
patent final · Dec 8, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01222
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
patent · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01131
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
