US PTAB IP Litigation
2,587 annotated decisions
Page 19 of 108 · 2,587 total
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Challenger Petition against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding patent 10656754. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over a combination of prior art patents (Ahn and Chaudhri '842). This challenges the validity of the patent covering gesture-based user interface display techniques.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to dynamic background appearance changes on touch screens. The core argument is that these claims are obvious, relying on combinations of prior art such as Hackborn and Westerman. This challenges the scope of protection for advanced gesture recognition technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to mobile user interface design and gesture recognition. The core argument centers on obviousness, asserting that combining known touch screen interactions with existing prior art techniques leads to predictable results.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on touch interface technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious, combining known elements related to duration-based gestures and tactile feedback from prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition and scaling (U.S. Patent No. 10,936,114). Petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Kim, Lang, Burrough, and Bowens. The dispute involves fundamental technology used in modern touch screen interfaces.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display filed a Petition challenging the validity of 16 claims in Pictiva Displays' OLED patent (8723164). The petition asserts that the core structural elements of the display are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references. This action directly challenges the scope and enforceability of Pictiva's technology.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 held by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The challenge asserts that the patent claims relating to organic electronic components are obvious over prior art references Werner and Ma. This action targets core technology in the high-value Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) market.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges 19 claims of Pictiva Displays' OLED patent (11828425) based on anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The petitioner argues that key features, such as specialized doping and flexible encapsulation, were already disclosed in prior art references.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC has initiated a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 held by Songbird Tech, LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims covering voice messaging and web communication systems are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This challenge targets fundamental components like audio encoding/decoding and browser-resident applications.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV challenges BuzzBallz's '904 patent covering beverage containers, asserting claims 1-6 are obvious or anticipated by prior art like Kick and Ackermann/Kaminski combinations. The petition also raises issues regarding improper introduction of volume limitations during prosecution.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Head Sport GmbH initiated an Inter Partes Review against Vermont Safety Developments LLC, challenging claims related to ski binding systems and injury prevention. The petitioner argues that various claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Dodge, Howell, Gulick, and Sittmann. The Board determined the petition was meritorious, leading to institution.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,378,218 owned by National Nail, Corp. The Petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd has filed an IPR petition challenging Patent No. 8307286 owned by WellcomeMat, LLC. The Petitioner asserts that Claims 13 and 17 are unpatentable due to anticipation (Section 102) and multiple instances of obviousness (Section 103).
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges The Procter & Gamble Company's patent (11540999) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed deodorant stick compositions are merely basic concepts already known or readily derivable from existing natural deodorant prior art.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. challenged MHL Custom's hydrofoil watercraft patent via petition, arguing that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references. The petitioner cited documents like EvoloReport and Woolley to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness across multiple claims related to stability and control.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 related to hydrofoil watercraft. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core features including passive stability and propulsion systems.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging 25 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent related to touch screen interface design. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious over prior art combining gesture recognition and visual state transition techniques.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging patent 10656754, arguing that the claimed UI transition methods are obvious over a combination of Ahn's mobile UI and Chaudhri '842's state transition techniques. The petitioner asserts that POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve usability and provide sensory feedback during gestures.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on mobile interface features. The core argument centers on obviousness, asserting that combining prior art teachings regarding gestures (Ahn) and visual feedback (Chaudhri '842) renders the claims unpatentable. This challenge targets key functionality in Human-Computer Interaction.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The challenge focuses on claims related to gesture detection and advanced user interface features like blurring effects and card metaphor multitasking. This action aims to invalidate key patents in the mobile computing space.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10656754) at the PTAB, arguing that core mobile interface claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining existing teachings regarding gestures and state transitions results in predictable functionality.