US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00806

The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00794

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00698

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Dec 3, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00697

The Board found all five challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Petitioner successfully argued that combining existing technologies was obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Payne and over Sakai/Kawagoe. Texas Instruments’ motion to join the earlier IPR2023-01244 was also granted.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 3, 2024

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00672

Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

The Director Review order grants Texas Instruments a remand, vacating the PTAB’s final decision. The Board is instructed to allow narrow discovery on privity and to consider previously excluded claim‑construction orders.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs challenging Greenthread’s semiconductor patents. The Board found the petitions lacked merit and ordered denial.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, leaving the prior final written decisions in place.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in Texas Instruments’ IPRs against Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, ordering new discovery on the privity issue.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

Texas Instruments petitioned to challenge Greenthread’s semiconductor patent and sought joinder with a related IPR. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and granted both institution and joinder, merging the proceeding into IPR2023-01242.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00672

The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

· IPR2024-00672

The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing abuse of discretion in denying discovery and striking claim‑construction orders.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

The PTAB Director Review email authorizes ADC Solutions Auto LLC to file a 15‑page response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00671. No new evidence may be submitted and the response must be filed within five business days.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron Intellectual Property's vacuum cleaner patent (US 10,117,550). The petition asserted grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC

Texas Instruments challenged Greenthread's patent on CMOS fabrication methods using multiple prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the merits strong, leading to institution of the petition.

Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC