US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 211 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent final · Mar 25, 2024
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
· IPR2024-00700
The Board found that claims 1, 2, and 9 were unpatentable over prior art references Tseng and Mizuno based on obviousness. The remaining claims (3-8 and 10-24) were deemed patentable.
patent · Mar 23, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00716
Nearmap requests Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Eagle View’s geo‑temporal property‑database patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied procedural rules, penalized its claim‑chart format and expert declaration length, and ignored substantive prior‑art mappings.
patent denied · Mar 23, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00716
The PTAB denied Nearmap's request for Director Review of the earlier institution denial in the IPR against Eagle View's patent.
patent null · Mar 23, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00716
Nearmap US, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Eagle View Technologies' patent 10671648. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Harris and Florance. This challenge focuses on geo-temporal database indexing and querying methods.
patent denied · Mar 23, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00716
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Nearmap US against Eagle View Technologies regarding a property database patent (10671648). The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to provide a detailed, non-bare-quotation explanation linking prior art disclosures to the challenged claims.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 22, 2024
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Soto, Alexander et al.
· IPR2024-00712
AT&T and the Soto patent owners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,238,754 covering passive optical network technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR, requesting the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent denied · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00721
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s 9,350,349 patent covering power islands with plural sleep transistors. The Board found MediaTek’s arguments insufficient and no abuse of discretion.
patent · Mar 22, 2024
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
· IPR2024-00642
Loco Crazy Good Cookers and North Atlantic Imports have settled their dispute over a cooking‑appliance patent and jointly moved to dismiss the inter partes review.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 22, 2024
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
· IPR2024-00642
The IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,660,473 was terminated after the petitioner and patent owner reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the proceeding.
patent · Mar 22, 2024
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
· IPR2024-00544
Nichia and LED maker BX LED have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,973,465 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites lack of institution and no merits decided, requesting Board approval of termination.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 22, 2024
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
· IPR2024-00544
Nichia and BX LED settled their LED patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00721
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned PTAB to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging claims related to power management in integrated circuits. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00720
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00714
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's '907 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references including Goldenberg and Levin. The petitioner asserted compelling evidence of unpatentability across all 20 claims based on various grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
patent null · Mar 22, 2024
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
· IPR2024-00642
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenges the validity of North Atlantic Imports' griddle patent (10660473), asserting that core features are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of references, including Williams and May/Best, to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00723
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
patent denied · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00721
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references related to integrated circuit power management.
patent denied · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00720
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID's patent 8253438. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing obviousness over prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno, particularly regarding the 'plurality of power islands' limitation.
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
· IPR2024-00642
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenged North Atlantic Imports' cooking appliance patent on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be obvious based on the prior art references. This moves the dispute toward trial preparation in District Court.
patent final · Mar 22, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00723
The PTAB found all 12 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board concluded that combining various prior art references—including Kim, TechnoBuffalo, and Ma—rendered the VOD user interface methods obvious.
patent final · Mar 22, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00714
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907 B2 unpatentable under both § 102 and § 103. The Board rejected the patent owner's narrow claim constructions, finding them inconsistent with intrinsic evidence, and concluded that prior art references (Goldenberg, Rosenberg) anticipated or rendered the claims obvious.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,212,146 after reaching a settlement. The motion cites statutory authority for termination and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
patent · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
Dell and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal in district court.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
