US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 184 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent null · Dec 3, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00672
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable and non-novel in advanced CMOS fabrication.
patent null · Dec 3, 2024
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-00671
ADC Solutions Auto LLC filed an IPR challenging The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as USB charging and lithium battery protection, are predictable combinations of existing prior art in automotive electronics.
patent instituted · Dec 3, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00690
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
patent instituted · Dec 3, 2024
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-00671
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
patent final · Dec 3, 2024
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-00671
The PTAB found that eight claims of the patent were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically regarding jump starting devices with USB charging capabilities. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine existing technologies for convenience and practical benefit.
patent · Dec 2, 2024
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-00493
Honeywell seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution of its IPR against DSM’s colored‑suture patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on patentable weight, combination rewriting, obvious‑to‑try analysis, and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑success standards. The request argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious and unpatentable.
patent · Dec 2, 2024
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-00493
Court decision.
patent null · Dec 2, 2024
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
· IPR2024-00567
NJOY challenges JUUL's patent (RE49,114) in a PTAB Petition based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references 'Cho' and 'Nielsen' disclose the core structural elements of e-cigarette cartridges. This challenge targets numerous claims related to wicking systems and atomization chambers.
patent instituted · Dec 2, 2024
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-00493
Honeywell International Inc. challenged the validity of patent 10280532 in a PTAB petition, alleging obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated material error by the Examiner and instituted the case for trial.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2024
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
· IPR2024-00567
The PTAB denied NJOY's request to challenge JUUL's electronic cigarette patent (RE49114), finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2024
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-00493
Honeywell International Inc.'s IPR challenge against DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for obviousness over various prior art combinations in the field of biomedical devices and polymer fibers.
patent · Dec 1, 2024
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00443
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.
patent · Dec 1, 2024
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
Nike has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that all 21 claims of its ’749 footwear‑knitting patent are unpatentable. The Owner contends the Board erred by disregarding the petitioner’s expert testimony and by incorrectly finding that the Nishida reference anticipates the claims.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 1, 2024
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00443
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
patent · Dec 1, 2024
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
In IPR2024-00460, the PTAB affirmed that the Nishida reference anticipates lululemon's claims of a footwear knitting method, rejecting Nike's new precision argument. The petitioner's response underscores the Board’s proper reliance on intrinsic disclosure and consistent expert testimony.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 1, 2024
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00443
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
patent denied · Dec 1, 2024
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
The USPTO denied Lululemon's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00460 concerning Nike's footwear patent 8,266,749. The order contains no substantive analysis of the patent claims.
patent null · Dec 1, 2024
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
patent null · Dec 1, 2024
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00443
TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
patent null · Dec 1, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00392
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
patent instituted · Dec 1, 2024
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
lululemon successfully petitioned to challenge Nike's patent (8266749) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding anticipation and obviousness grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
patent Final Written Decision · Dec 1, 2024
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art (Nishida and Zuckerman) anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed textile manufacturing methods, specifically regarding simultaneous knitting and planar configuration.
patent final · Dec 1, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00392
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
patent · Nov 29, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00164
Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
