US PTAB IP Litigation
2,587 annotated decisions
Page 18 of 108 · 2,587 total
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges a patent held by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the challenged claims related to audience measurement are obvious over prior art. Petitioner Roku relies on combinations of references like Feininger and Ramaswamy/Conklin to demonstrate predictable results in media playback analysis.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges U.S. Patent No. 8510768, owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, over methods for audio content identification and fingerprinting. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious combinations of prior art references involving signal processing techniques.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging a patent covering Audio/Video Fingerprinting and Playback Stream Analysis. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges the validity of Patent '896, asserting that its claims related to audience behavior analysis are obvious over prior art references. The petition focuses on combining elements from Feininger, Ramaswamy, and Conklin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc. has filed an IPR challenging the validity of the '848 patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (103), arguing that specific combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges a patent covering content identification and playback stream analysis, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that various combinations render the claimed methods predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's patent claims, arguing that Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts obviousness based on combinations of prior art references related to signal processing and RF down-conversion.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
smaXtec Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge a key patent held by ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC at the PTAB. The petition asserts seven grounds of invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica has filed an IPR challenging 21 claims of E-Vision Optics' patent regarding embedded electronics in eyewear frames. The petitioner argues that these claims are obvious over decades-old prior art, which discloses generic components and known electronic techniques.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent covering smart eyewear with integrated electronics. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references render the challenged claims invalid under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. filed a petition challenging E-Vision Optics' patent claims related to smart eyewear, asserting that the patents are invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known components and predictable arrangements disclosed in prior art references render nearly all claims unpatentable.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging E-Vision Smart Optics' '960 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petitioner asserts that foundational concepts like voice commands and proximity detection were disclosed much earlier by competitors. This action targets 26 claims based on combinations of patents including Jannard-740 and Rosenblatt.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components challenged US Conec Ltd.'s patent covering fiber optic connector designs, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition targets multiple claims using grounds based on Section 103 (obviousness).
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela LLC has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging key patents related to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) systems held by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela LLC filed a Petition challenging 22 claims of patent 8858534 related to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT). The petitioners assert grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on combinations of prior art references, including Risk, Watson, Hunt, Lina, and Dolliver. The petition was successfully instituted by the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics challenges Oura Health's wearable computing patents via IPR proceedings, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to gesture recognition and biosensing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has initiated an IPR petition challenging Oura Health's patent claims related to health monitoring and fitness tracking. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Ahmed, Wisbey, and Shiga.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
Qualcomm challenged Network System Technologies' patent claims related to resource management in Network on Chip (NoC) technology. The petitioner asserts that the claimed functionality is obvious over prior art references by combining known networking techniques.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,642,413 owned by Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-equipped touch screen systems. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Ahn, Chaudhri-842, and Hinkley. This challenge targets core aspects of modern user interface design.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,649,578 held by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references, specifically Shiplacoff and a combination of Shiplacoff with Nan. This proceeding addresses fundamental questions regarding gesture recognition in touch screen interfaces.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging 37 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10649580). The core argument is that the claimed touchscreen interaction and zooming widgets are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on combinations of prior art from Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, Ording, and Hayward. Apple contends that known techniques were predictable solutions available to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.