US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 200 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00735
The PTAB found that claims 1-6 and 9-13 were unpatentable over Kaplan and Bryant under 35 U.S.C. § 103, while rejecting the challenge to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 due to insufficient evidence of prior art accessibility. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'user profile,' aligning with district court findings.
patent final · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00717
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims unpatentable by obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining various prior art references—including Chinn, Takahashi, and Kim—would render the claimed features obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
patent · Apr 18, 2024
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00822
Pharaoh Energy Services has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Flex‑Chem’s 9,944,843 well‑stimulation patent. The petition relies on Frenier and Reyes as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 13 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Apr 18, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00797
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint PTAB request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b) and related regulations.
patent denied · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
Micron’s request for Director Review of IPR2024-00790 was denied after the Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal, which stripped the PTAB of jurisdiction. The Board cited In re Graves in reaching its decision.
patent · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claim 4 of its 3‑D NAND patent remains unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness law, ignoring KSR precedent and the known‑substitute teaching of Kim and Tessariol.
patent · Apr 18, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00797
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.
patent denied · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on claim 4 of Yangtze Memory’s 3D memory patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to demonstrate a motivation or benefit for the alleged modification.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 18, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00797
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
patent · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
Micron has requested a Director Review of the IPR decision against Yangtze Memory Technologies. The Patent Owner has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Apr 18, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00679
InfoExpress successfully defended its NAC patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, with the PTAB upholding all challenged claims. The Board found the antedating evidence properly presented and rejected the petitioners’ untimely arguments.
patent · Apr 18, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00675
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the PTAB's final written decision on the ’484 patent. They allege the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and breaching the burden of conception and diligence.
patent denied · Apr 18, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00675
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving patent 7,523,484. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
patent null · Apr 18, 2024
Valeo SE et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00823
Valeo SE et al. filed a Petition challenging claims of Foras Technologies Limited's patent (7502958) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petitioners argue that the claimed fault-tolerant processor architecture is rendered obvious by combining Bigbee and Nguyen prior art references.
patent null · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging the validity of Yangtze Memory Technologies' '031 Patent, arguing that key claims are obvious over prior art references Kim and Tessariol. The petition focuses on 3D NAND memory structures, specifically multi-stack staircase designs and etch profiles. Micron asserts that the combination of teachings from these references renders the claimed features predictable and non-novel.
patent null · Apr 18, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00679
CISCO and FORTINET filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of InfoExpress's U.S. Patent No. 7,523,484 in the PTAB. The petitioners argue that the network access methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation against InfoExpress in District Court.
patent null · Apr 18, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00675
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's 7523484 Patent in an IPR, asserting that the network security claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references (Krantz and Herrmann) disclose nearly identical architecture to the patented invention, making the claims unpatentable.
patent denied · Apr 18, 2024
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00822
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims in a well remediation patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient novelty or obviousness against prior art references. The Board relied heavily on the proximity of parallel district court litigation when applying Fintiv factors for discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00797
Abbott Diabetes Care challenged DexCom's CGM patents in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art combining Yarger and Love. The Board granted institution after claim construction, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00789
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
patent instituted · Apr 18, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00675
CISCO SYSTEMS and FORTINET successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction regarding device reconfiguration while accepting the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Krantz and Herrmann.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 18, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3 unpatentable over Kim due to obviousness (103), while claims 4 and 5 were found patentable. The Board construed the key term 'surrounding' as meaning 'all around' or 'encircling.'
