US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 215 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
Harbor Island Dynamic has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its TSV patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial factors related to a pending district‑court trial date.
patent denied · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, leaving the institution rulings in place.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
Harbor Island Dynamic has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung. The Board limited Samsung's response to five pages and five business days, prohibiting new evidence.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
Samsung filed an Authorized Response to the PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly weighed Factor 2 and should deny the review of Harbor Island Dynamic’s location‑services patent. The brief relies on extensive case law to show that a three‑month trial‑date delta only slightly favors discretionary denial.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2024-01430
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’609 patent covering through‑silicon‑via structures, arguing that all 18 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Cooney, Dean, Farooq, and Chen.
patent · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2024-01431
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 54 claims of SiOnyx’s ’737 image‑sensor patent, asserting anticipation or obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
patent instituted · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2024-01431
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in its IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent (US 11069737). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits against both Haddad138 and Yap regarding image sensor technology claims.
patent instituted · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
patent instituted · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
patent final · Sep 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
The Board issued a final decision finding that all challenged claims (19) were unpatentable. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness and anticipation based on combining prior art references in the field of SOI switching circuits.
patent · Sep 23, 2024
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-01469
Menard has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Signify’s configurable lighting patent, arguing that the CCT switch placement is obvious in view of several prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution despite parallel district‑court litigation.
patent · Sep 23, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-01450
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
patent denied · Sep 23, 2024
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-01469
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
patent instituted · Sep 23, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-01450
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 23, 2024
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-01469
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
patent final · Sep 23, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-01450
The PTAB rejected Cisco's IPR challenge against the '088 patent, finding no grounds for obviousness over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath. The Board construed the key term "other connections" narrowly to mean established connections with allocated bandwidth, favoring the Patent Owner's interpretation.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 20, 2024
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
· IPR2024-01468
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01463
Solus Advanced Materials seeks to block the PTAB Director's review of its successful institution of an IPR against SK Nexilis' 11,591,706 patent covering advanced material technology.
