US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 180 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
The PTAB sent an email confirming receipt of the patent owner's Director Review request and imposed a five‑page limit on the response, barred new evidence, and required filing within five business days. No additional briefing is allowed at this stage.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01323
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01323
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,179,359 patent covering differentiated network‑access policies for mobile devices, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
· IPR2024-01371
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of the 372 Patent, arguing they are obvious over Shao‑028 and Shao‑423. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01395
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's U.S. Patent 11,652,834, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Zhang patent and the McNab book. The petition lists 22 claims and argues that passive DNS enumeration techniques were well‑known before the patent's filing date.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01324
Quotient Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intelligent Clearing Network’s 9,098,855 coupon‑processing patent, asserting that all 57 claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply, seeking institution of the review.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01381
CMS Cepcor has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s U.S. Patent 11,014,090 covering gyratory crusher shafts, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that institution should be granted despite parallel litigation.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01380
CMS Cepcor petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s 9,827,568 patent covering a gyratory crusher shaft sleeve, arguing that all ten claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition stresses that the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01323
Quotient Technology seeks to invalidate 35 claims of a digital‑coupon patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier coupon‑processing publications. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01325
Quotient Technology has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Patent 10,846,729, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims as obvious over prior‑art coupon systems. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
patent denied · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.
patent denied · Jun 9, 2024
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01406
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a vaporizing smoking article patent, citing the existence and advanced stage of a parallel ITC investigation.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01406
The Director granted review of an institution decision in a vaping patent case, vacating the original ruling and sending it back to the Board. The parties must now address discretionary denial under Fintiv factors considering a parallel ITC proceeding.
patent instituted · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01381
CMS Cepcor successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Sandvik's gyratory crusher patent (11,014,090 B2), setting the stage for a complex obviousness trial involving three prior art references.
patent instituted · Jun 9, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01377
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, arguing that multiple prior art combinations render the claims unpatentable under 102 and 103. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, despite factors favoring discretionary denial, leading to the institution of the review on all 25 challenged claims.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01377
The Director denied review of institution decisions in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPRs and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel challenges.
patent denied · Jun 9, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
· IPR2024-01371
The PTAB denied Cisco Systems' IPR petition against Scale Video Coding LLC, finding the asserted claims were not reasonably likely to be unpatentable over prior art references. The decision focused on technical limitations regarding bandwidth identification in video routers.
patent instituted · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01324
Quotient Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of patent 9098855 against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on anticipation and obviousness grounds, primarily citing prior art from Deaton. This decision allows Quotient to proceed with challenging key claims related to coupon redemption networks.
patent denied · Jun 9, 2024
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01325
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Quotient Technology against Intelligent Clearing Network regarding patent 10846729. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Aggarwal and Deaton.
patent final · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01381
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,014,090 B2 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the specific structural limitations claimed by the patent.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01380
The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Jun 8, 2024
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-01264
A challenger has filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808, owned by The Ridge Wallet LLC. The petitioner asserts that the patent's compact wallet structure and auxiliary clip mechanism are obvious combinations of existing prior art references. This challenge targets all 24 claims based on Section 103 (obviousness).
patent denied · Jun 8, 2024
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-01264
Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
