US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 197 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00841
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
patent denied · Apr 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00828
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
patent denied · Apr 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00828
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
patent · Apr 26, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00854
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
patent null · Apr 26, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00841
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
patent instituted · Apr 26, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00841
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
patent instituted · Apr 26, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00846
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB that its biometric authentication claims were not obvious over prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · Apr 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00828
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.
patent denied · Apr 26, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00793
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
patent denied · Apr 26, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00793
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 26, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00846
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
patent final · Apr 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00828
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
patent · Apr 25, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00025
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s 11,707,033 corn plant patent, arguing it is an obvious copy of earlier varieties. The petition seeks Director review to correct the Board’s alleged legal error.
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00025
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request to review the PTAB's denial of institution for Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed‑technology patent, leaving the denial in place.
patent · Apr 25, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00025
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging 20 claims of Pioneer’s corn‑variety patent, arguing obviousness, lack of utility, and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution of the review and raises novel legal questions about plant‑utility claim drafting.
patent null · Apr 25, 2024
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
· IPR2024-00851
RJ Machine Company has filed an opening petition challenging Schneider’s connector apparatus patent (9851030). The petitioner argues that the claimed union nut connectors are conventional and obvious, citing prior art from the oil and gas industry. This challenge targets multiple grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.
patent null · Apr 25, 2024
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S
· IPR2024-00849
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,695,151 held by 3Shape A/S. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to dental shade determination are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103).
patent null · Apr 25, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00814
Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00025
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's PGR challenge against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims (1-20). The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability on grounds of obviousness, utility, or indefiniteness.
patent denied · Apr 25, 2024
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
· IPR2024-00851
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by RJ Machine Company against Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG. The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), particularly concerning the means-plus-function claim construction of 'sealing means.'
patent instituted · Apr 25, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00814
Toyota Motor Corp.'s IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the challenge of numerous claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with challenging key features related to vehicle profile management and cloud services.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 25, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00814
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
patent null · Apr 24, 2024
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
· IPR2024-00802
Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
patent denied · Apr 24, 2024
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
· IPR2024-00802
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.
