US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 214 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Mar 15, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
· IPR2024-00695
Cisco Systems successfully secured the institution of its IPR against VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., challenging 13 claims related to low latency video conferencing over § 103 obviousness. The Board found compelling evidence that Cisco has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple independent and dependent claims, moving the dispute into active litigation.
patent instituted · Mar 15, 2024
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-00692
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
patent instituted · Mar 15, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00627
Amazon successfully navigated the institution phase of its IPR against Nokia regarding video coding claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon could prove unpatentability under § 103, leading to the case being instituted for trial.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00686
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00681
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 14, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00681
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Mar 14, 2024
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
· IPR2024-00542
Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.
patent null · Mar 14, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00696
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent null · Mar 14, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00685
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 14, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00694
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
patent denied · Mar 13, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00614
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00650
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00649
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00647
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00614
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00649
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00650
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
patent final · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
The PTAB found all 30 challenged claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed methods for treating non-colorectal MSI-H cancers.
patent final · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00647
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
HighLevel filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ website‑navigation patent, arguing the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative of prior art considered during prosecution.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00234
HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
