US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 206 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 4, 2024
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
· IPR2024-00764
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
patent denied · Apr 4, 2024
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00744
The PTAB denied institution of Autel's IPR against Orange Electronic's TPMS patent, finding the petition presented no new prior art or arguments beyond those already considered in a prior reexamination.
patent null · Apr 4, 2024
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
· IPR2024-00764
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
patent null · Apr 4, 2024
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00744
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
patent denied · Apr 4, 2024
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00744
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00640
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00625
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00624
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00623
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00622
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00612
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00639
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00625
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates key claims, warranting further trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00612
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Sitnet LLC's patent 8249932, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00639
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00625
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00623
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all seven claims of the patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) based on the MSI-H Study Record, which was deemed prior art despite arguments regarding experimental use exceptions.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00624
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the '975 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed methods and drug characteristics were anticipated (102) or rendered obvious (103) by prior art, primarily the MSI-H Study Record (MSR).
patent · Apr 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00122
Senko Advanced Components files a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny US Conec’s IPR petition on claims covering a duplex fiber‑optic connector, arguing the cited prior art fails to meet every claim limitation.
patent · Apr 1, 2024
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
· IPR2024-00382
Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 1, 2024
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
· IPR2024-00382
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-00382 after Datavant and Vigilytics reached a settlement, keeping the agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 1, 2024
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
· IPR2024-00381
Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 1, 2024
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
· IPR2024-00382
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over a HIPAA‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
