US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 212 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00709
LinkedIn and patent holder Intent IQ (AlmondNet) reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,715,878, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
patent instituted · Mar 20, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
The PTAB granted Roku’s motion to join its inter partes review with Meta’s pending IPR, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23 of the ’878 patent on the same 103 grounds used in the earlier proceeding.
patent null · Mar 20, 2024
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00709
LinkedIn Corporation filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of patent 10715878, arguing they are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Baig and Laidlaw to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in targeted advertising and device association technology.
patent null · Mar 20, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
Roku challenges Intent IQ's patent 10715878 in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references (Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, Hahn, Xu, Gerace) to establish obviousness across various technical features related to targeted advertising and cross-device tracking.
patent final · Mar 20, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
The IPR petition against Intent IQ's '878 patent failed entirely, as the Board found no unpatentability for any challenged claim. The petitioner (Roku) argued obviousness over multiple prior art combinations related to targeted advertising using IP addresses.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
HPE and Cisco have settled with Cobblestone Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over the ’802 patent covering IEEE 802.11n technology.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco settled their IPR dispute with Cobblestone Wireless, filing the settlement as confidential and requesting termination of the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
patent · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against its MPEG‑1 video‑encoding patent, asserting that the Board abused discretion because the prior art discloses the claimed identifier‑resetting feature.
patent · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Nokia’s video‑decoding patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board misapplied MPEG‑1 and Kim disclosures, which describe encoder outputs, not the decoder resetting required by the claims.
patent denied · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.
patent null · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patents (8,050,321) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over established standards like MPEG-1 and prior art references such as Kim and Yagasaki. The petitioner asserts that existing technologies render the core inventive concepts of the patent predictable.
patent instituted · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
The PTAB institution decision upheld the Petitioner's challenge of nine claims based on obviousness in wireless communication technology. The Board accepted that prior art disclosures, including IEEE standards and Shearer, support the claimed dual-frequency transmission structure.
patent instituted · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
The PTAB granted institution for the patent covering video coding methods related to grouping image frames. The petitioner successfully argued that the claims are obvious over prior art references like MPEG-1, Yagasaki, and Kim. This decision sets a precedent regarding how standard technical specifications can teach complex encoding mechanisms.
patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00701
The Board granted Samsung Electronics’ motion to join an existing IPR against Intent IQ’s ’878 patent, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23. The joinder was found timely and without prejudice, consolidating the proceedings with the Meta Platforms IPR.
patent · Mar 18, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00551
Greenthread, LLC has filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,734,481 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and consideration of secondary factors.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 18, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00552
The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.
patent null · Mar 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00701
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.
patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00553
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00552
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.
patent instituted · Mar 18, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00551
Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.
