US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 182 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent terminated or settled · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
The PTAB denied Databricks' request for Director Review of the earlier decision that refused to institute its IPR against R2 Solutions' data‑processing patent. The Director recused herself, and the Deputy Under Secretary upheld the denial.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
PTAB notified Fluidmaster and Danco that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-00635. The petitioner may submit a limited 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks, Inc. challenges R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8,190,610) in a Petition proceeding, arguing that the claimed enhancements to MapReduce are obvious. The petitioner contends that combining existing distributed processing techniques from Pike and Chowdhuri renders the claims predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00634
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00620
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
The PTAB denied institution of the PGR petition filed by Inari Agriculture against Pioneer Hi-Bred, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success. The Board specifically rejected obviousness claims because they relied on phenotypic comparisons while ignoring critical genotypic differences in maize breeding technology.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks, Inc. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8190610) regarding MapReduce data grouping. The PTAB denied institution because Petitioner relied on speculative hindsight rather than demonstrating a clear motivation from prior art references like Pike and Chowdhuri.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB against Danco, Inc., leading to the institution of trial on all 14 claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the patent's features were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using various prior art references. This decision significantly advances Fluidmaster’s challenge in related district court litigation.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek successfully secured institution at the PTAB against MOSAID Technologies regarding integrated circuit patents related to power management. The Board accepted Petitioner's showing of reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable over prior art references, including Takahashi and Mizuno.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
The PTAB panel majority found that the cited prior art references teach or suggest all limitations of claims 1-14, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically construed key terms like 'overflow tube' and 'Flow Limitations' to support Petitioner’s reading, though ultimately found the overflow tube limitation was limiting in scope.
patent final · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00633
The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00634
The PTAB found 16 claims unpatentable over prior art references, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board upheld its construction of 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 3, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00613
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
patent · Jun 2, 2024
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
· IPR2024-00347
Delta Power Equipment, Lowe’s and Home Depot seek rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their cutting‑machine blade‑guard patent, arguing the Board misread the Gass prior art and that claims 1,2,5,9 are obvious.
patent null · Jun 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
Tesla filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent (8972161), challenging the claims based on obviousness over prior art references. Tesla argues that the claimed energy-optimum routing and automatic cruise control features are conventional modifications of existing technology, making them unpatentable.
patent instituted · Jun 2, 2024
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
· IPR2024-00347
Petitioners (Delta Power Equipment, Lowe's, Home Depot) successfully requested institution of their Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 7,475,622. The challenge asserts that the claimed safety features for table saws are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gass and AAPA.
patent instituted · Jun 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.
patent denied · Jun 2, 2024
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
· IPR2024-00347
Petitioner's attempt to invalidate a cutting machine safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that key biasing elements in the prior art did not match the specific limitations of the claims.
patent final · Jun 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art combination with Neiss supported the modifications to the patented system, particularly regarding route handling and iterative energy calculation. Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 were found invalid.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
