US PTAB IP Litigation

Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.

· IPR2024-00970

The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation

· IPR2024-00954

The PTAB denied institution for Cisco Systems' IPR against Portsmouth Network Corporation regarding network failover methods. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the prior art, specifically Mitchell.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation

· IPR2024-00954

Cisco Systems' attempt to overturn the denial of IPR institution against Portsmouth Network Corporation was rejected by the Delegated Review Panel. The DRP upheld the Board's implicit claim construction, finding that the claims covered all network nodes, not just downstream ones.

patent Final Written Decision · May 30, 2024

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-00900

Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00990

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). Specifically, claims 11, 12, and 14–20 were found obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board also denied the Patent Owner's motion to amend regarding substitute claims 29-37, rejecting some for lack of enablement/utility.

patent final · May 30, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00983

The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically regarding vibration-generating devices. The Board concluded that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine prior art references like Alexander and Cosper to achieve the claimed results.

patent final · May 30, 2024

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-00899

The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

patent denied · May 29, 2024

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,640,733 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

patent null · May 29, 2024

Court decision.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

patent null · May 29, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.

patent Final Written Decision · May 29, 2024

Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.

· IPR2024-00711

Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC