US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 207 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent null · Apr 1, 2024
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
· IPR2024-00381
Datavant challenges Vigilytics's '012 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to de-identification and tokenization in healthcare data. The petitioner argues that combining known concepts from prior art references like Evenhaim, Murphy, Dick, and Landi renders the claims predictable. This is an early petition for review filing focused on fundamental privacy compliance techniques.
patent instituted · Apr 1, 2024
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
· IPR2024-00381
Datavant, Inc. successfully challenged 20 claims of Vigilytics LLC's patent (10886012) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the technology for de-identifying medical data was obvious over prior art references like Evenhaim and Murphy. The PTAB decided to institute the case, finding a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
patent denied · Apr 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00122
The PTAB denied US Conec's request to institute IPR against Senko Advanced Components, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims related to fiber optic connectors.
patent · Apr 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00122
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,061,190 by asserting obviousness (Section 103) over multiple combinations of prior art references including Nakagawa, Raven, Veatch, Connelly, and Cline. The petitioner argues that the combination of these references would have been predictable to a POSITA, while also contesting the applicability of § 325(d) discretionary denial.
patent null · Mar 31, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00506
Cisco Systems challenges Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent (8014394) in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining various prior art references renders nearly all challenged claims unpatentable.
patent instituted · Mar 31, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00506
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent (8014394) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for several claims based on obviousness over prior art references Weyman and Li.
patent final · Mar 31, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00506
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining existing network technologies taught or rendered obvious the claimed limitations, particularly in multicast routing and packet processing.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Mar 29, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
· IPR2024-00745
Tesla’s IPR against Autonomous Devices’ ’974 patent resulted in the Board finding claims 4 and 11 unpatentable and also striking the proposed substitute claims 21 and 24‑26, while leaving claims 5, 7 and other substitutes intact.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 29, 2024
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
· IPR2024-00756
Toyota and Infogation settled their IPR dispute over patent 6,292,743 B1, leading the Board to dismiss the case before a trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential under statutory provisions.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-00736
Disney challenges the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability for a movie‑distribution method, arguing the Board relied on an improper combination of prior art. The petition seeks Director review of the decision.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
· IPR2024-00754
Toyota Motor Corp. and Infogation Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,107,628 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue dismissal is appropriate at this early stage.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00743
The Board issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their Confidential Settlement Agreement private under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The agreement will be treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00743
Cala Health and EMKinetics jointly moved to dismiss IPR2024‑00743 covering claims 1‑17 of U.S. Patent 11,628,300. The parties cite a confidential settlement and the early, pre‑institution stage of the proceeding as reasons for dismissal.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-00736
Disney challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that the Board’s claim constructions and prior‑art analysis were correct. The response contends the request adds no new arguments and should be denied.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-00736
Digital Media Technology Holdings seeks a 30‑day extension to file a Director Review request after the PTAB’s final decision on its U.S. Patent 7,574,725, citing good cause due to counsel’s age and heavy workload.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00732
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing competitive harm if disclosed. The Board has yet to rule on the request.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 29, 2024
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00732
The PTAB issued an order compelling Cala Health and EMKinetics to file a true copy of their settlement agreement before the joint motion to dismiss can be acted upon, emphasizing compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). A dissenting judge argues the rule does not apply pre‑institution.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-00710
WellcomeMat seeks Director Review of a Board decision that declared its video‑editing cue‑point patent invalid. The Owner contends the Board misapplied legal standards on anticipation, obviousness, and claim construction.
patent instituted · Mar 29, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-00710
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point processing for online real‑estate videos. Petitioner Aylo Freesites showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, and the Board rejected discretionary denial arguments.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-00710
Aylo Freesites Ltd responded to WellcomeMat’s Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly found claims 13‑15 and 17‑20 of the ’286 patent unpatentable based on proper prior‑art comparison. The Board’s analysis of the video‑editing environment claim term was upheld, and the request for review should be denied.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00688
Motorola Mobility seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Largan’s 9,997,660 patent covering a light‑trap optical sheet. The petitioner claims the Board erred by dismissing simultaneous‑invention evidence and applying an unduly rigid obviousness test.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 29, 2024
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00732
Cala Health and EMKINETICS settled their dispute over two patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before trial.
patent · Mar 29, 2024
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00732
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint motion to dismiss the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,786,669, citing a confidential settlement and the early stage of the proceeding. They request the Board terminate the case before institution to preserve resources.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 29, 2024
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
· IPR2024-00756
Toyota and Infogation settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,292,743 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending inter partes review.
