US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 213 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
· PGR2024-00053
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Hyperice’s percussive‑massager patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the ’909 MRAM patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art MTJ publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
Western Digital petitions the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of a MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over known MTJ teachings. The petition cites Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, Parkin and Soukup as prior art and challenges discretionary denial.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2024-01477
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
patent instituted · Sep 27, 2024
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
· PGR2024-00053
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on 16 claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1's patent (11968909). The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Bowen and Soukup, particularly regarding Claim 5.
patent instituted · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 were non-obvious, leading to the institution of trial on all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on combinations of Bowen and Sunai prior art.
patent denied · Sep 27, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2024-01477
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 27, 2024
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
· PGR2024-00053
Therabody challenged Hyperice's patent on percussive massagers based on indefiniteness and obviousness, but the PTAB upheld the claims. The Board found that key terms like 'substantially cylindrical' were supported by functional limitations in the specification.
patent denied · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01389
iCharts LLC filed an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for director review of the institution decision. The response emphasizes that the dissent does not merit reversal and that Tableau failed the reasonable‑likelihood test under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent denied · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01389
The PTAB Director denied Tableau Software's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01389, leaving iCharts LLC's patent 8,520,000 intact.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01388
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01389
Tableau Software seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision denying institution of its IPR against iCharts’ interactive‑chart patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on claim constructions, motivation to combine, and QlikView disclosures.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01387
iCharts LLC seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2012 data‑visualization patent, arguing the case would duplicate district‑court litigation and waste Board resources.
patent denied · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01388
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01388
iCharts LLC submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for Director Review of the institution decision that denied an IPR on patent 9,712,595. The brief argues the dissent does not create a reasonable likelihood of success and that the Board’s findings on the prior art were correct.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
· IPR2024-01490
Slack and Salesforce have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Wrinkl’s ’731 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art chat‑interface patents.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01389
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts' 8,520,000 patent covering interactive chart embedding. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that there is no objective evidence of patentability.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01388
Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01387
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
· IPR2024-01489
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
patent · Sep 26, 2024
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2024-01492
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
