US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 194 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
The PTAB denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of the final written decisions in IPR2024-00539 and four related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent · May 3, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00310
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
patent · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.
patent null · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
patent instituted · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
patent null · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
patent denied · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
patent instituted · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
patent instituted · May 3, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00310
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
patent Final Written Decision · May 3, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00310
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The patent relates to random access procedures in LTE/5G apparatuses and involved significant claim construction regarding power ramping functions.
patent null · May 2, 2024
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2024-00546
DISH Network challenges the validity of patent 8621539, arguing that its claims are obvious by combining prior art from Hou, Konschak, and Dapper. The petitioner asserts that known techniques in broadband cable networking render the claimed methods predictable improvements.
patent instituted · May 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00541
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (7,925,426) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims related to route optimization and power management are obvious. The PTAB found merits compelling and decided to institute the case based on favorable Fintiv factors.
patent null · May 2, 2024
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
· IPR2024-00536
NJOY challenges JUUL's e-cigarette patent (US 11,606,981) on multiple grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Petition argues that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features of the vaping device readily apparent. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation and ITC investigations between the parties.
patent denied · May 2, 2024
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2024-00546
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. The dispute centers on whether specific probe packet techniques in coaxial networks are obvious.
patent denied · May 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00541
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent denied · May 2, 2024
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
· IPR2024-00536
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition for NJOY against JUUL Labs, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found insufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success in combining various prior art references across multiple claims.
patent terminated or settled · May 1, 2024
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00356
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
patent terminated or settled · May 1, 2024
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00356
Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.
patent terminated or settled · May 1, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00327
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,986,303 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent denied · May 1, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00314
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
