US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 198 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Apr 23, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00785
Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.
patent denied · Apr 23, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00785
The PTAB denied Toyota and Kia's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026. The denial leaves the earlier institution denial in place.
patent denied · Apr 23, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00785
Toyota and Kia’s attempt to obtain Director review of an IPR against Emerging Automotive was rejected. The Board held the request unauthorized under 37 C.F.R. §42.75(c) and affirmed its earlier denial of institution. The brief also urges denial of other pending IPRs between the parties.
patent · Apr 23, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00785
Toyota Motor Corp. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026; the patent owner may respond within five business days.
patent null · Apr 23, 2024
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
· IPR2024-00834
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.
patent instituted · Apr 23, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00785
Toyota and Kia filed an IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC regarding its vehicle access control systems patent (10407026). The petitioners argue that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art, primarily Zaid.
patent instituted · Apr 23, 2024
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
· IPR2024-00834
Encube Ethicals successfully challenged Dermavant Sciences' patent claims in the PTAB, leading to institution of the case. The Board found sufficient grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically regarding psoriasis treatment methods. This decision significantly strengthens Encube's position by validating their prior art arguments against the '088 patent.
patent denied · Apr 23, 2024
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00785
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00833
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, which the Board approved and treated the settlement as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00833
The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly moved to terminate two inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
patent · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00765
Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.
patent null · Apr 22, 2024
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00833
Zepp Health Corporation initiated an IPR against Slyde Analytics, LLC regarding a smartwatch patent, asserting obviousness under 103. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed features were predictable applications of routine technology in wearable displays.
patent null · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
Applied Concepts Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed traffic speed detection features are predictable combinations of existing prior art references.
patent null · Apr 22, 2024
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00765
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
patent instituted · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 15 claims in a traffic radar system patent (11,194,039) after finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art references like Aker and Thomas.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00813
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent instituted · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00783
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00782
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
patent instituted · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00784
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).
