US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 192 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · May 7, 2024
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
· IPR2024-01049
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
patent denied · May 7, 2024
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
· IPR2024-01047
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
patent Final Written Decision · May 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
· IPR2024-01133
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.
patent Final Written Decision · May 7, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01130
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
patent final · May 7, 2024
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
· IPR2024-01048
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
patent · May 6, 2024
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
patent · May 6, 2024
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01002
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
patent terminated or settled · May 6, 2024
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01001
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
patent · May 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00952
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
patent · May 6, 2024
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01001
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
patent · May 6, 2024
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
patent denied · May 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00952
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00952, leaving the earlier denial of institution unchanged. The proceeding therefore remains denied.
patent null · May 6, 2024
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01002
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
patent null · May 6, 2024
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01001
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
patent · May 6, 2024
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
patent instituted · May 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00973
BOE Technology Group filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of patent 9184157 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. The challenge asserts that the claimed ESD protection circuits are obvious over prior art references Reiner and Takahara. The petition was successfully instituted, setting up a detailed examination of the combination of existing circuit knowledge.
patent · May 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00952
Cambridge Mobile Telematics challenged 18 of Sfara, Inc.'s crash detection claims in an IPR petition, arguing they are rendered obvious by prior art references Green and Wright. The petitioner asserts that combining existing sensor technologies with methods for logging driving information allows a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to achieve the claimed features.
patent instituted · May 6, 2024
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
patent instituted · May 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00973
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
patent denied · May 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00952
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to provide a proper claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Additionally, the Board found that key 'component' terms functioned as means-plus-function limitations lacking cognizable structure in the patent specification.
patent final · May 6, 2024
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
patent final · May 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00973
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
patent · May 4, 2024
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
· IPR2024-00746
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
patent terminated or settled · May 4, 2024
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
· IPR2024-00750
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
