US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 189 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent all challenged claims upheld · May 17, 2024
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
· IPR2024-00937
The PTAB affirmed all ten claims of the ’329 ad‑viewability patent, finding Duration Media failed to prove obviousness over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins. Claim constructions on “render,” “replacement advertisement,” and the “in‑response‑to” step were adopted.
patent terminated or settled · May 17, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent denied · May 17, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00918
The PTAB denied the petitioners' requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies' streaming patent, leaving the original decisions intact.
patent · May 17, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00906
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
patent · May 17, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · May 17, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00918
A joint notice was filed by DISH Technologies and the petitioners confirming that the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00918 contains no confidential information, allowing it to be publicly released.
patent · May 17, 2024
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
· IPR2024-00937
Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.
patent null · May 17, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Dyson challenged a patent covering vacuum cleaner apparatus, arguing that all 15 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies heavily on combining well-known configurations from references like Butler, Peng, and Lehmann to demonstrate predictable results in cleaning device design.
patent · May 17, 2024
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
· IPR2024-00937
Duration Media LLC challenged Rich Media Club LLC's patents, asserting that claims 1-14 related to viewability measurement are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed technology is obvious when combining prior art references like Koeppel and Seo.
patent null · May 17, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00871
Reed Semiconductor Corporation challenged Monolithic Power Systems' '608 Patent, asserting that claims related to bootstrap refresh control circuits for DC-DC voltage converters are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references, including TI data sheets and patents by Galinski, Li, and Wong, to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness.
patent instituted · May 17, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Dyson successfully had its patent (No. 11,389,038 B2) instituted in an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc., overcoming initial challenges regarding obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Dyson across all asserted claims (1-15), moving the dispute toward trial.
patent instituted · May 17, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00917
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156). The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. This sets up a high-stakes challenge to core technology in digital media streaming.
patent denied · May 17, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00912
Micron Technology, Inc. lost its request for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company regarding NAND Flash memory patents.
patent denied · May 17, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00912
Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.
patent denied · May 17, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00910
Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.
patent denied · May 17, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00910
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
patent denied · May 17, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00871
The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.
patent final · May 17, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00917
The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00902
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
patent denied · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00904
The PTAB denied fuboTV Media’s request for rehearing of the final written decision in IPR2024-00046, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction or consideration of prior art. The petition’s arguments on claim 7 were deemed untimely and unsupported.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00901
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 13, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00901
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
patent · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
patent · May 13, 2024
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00687
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
