US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 218 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Mar 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
patent instituted · Mar 1, 2024
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
· IPR2024-00380
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to challenge P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087) before the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The petitioner alleges that the polymer coating claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Cohen and Legein.
patent instituted · Mar 1, 2024
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
· IPR2024-00380
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to overturn a discretionary denial of IPR for P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087). The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently evaluated during prosecution, leading to the institution of the case on § 103 grounds.
patent denied · Mar 1, 2024
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations
· IPR2024-00364
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent 8265096, finding no reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prove unpatentability. The denial hinged on the Board's rejection of anticipation arguments based on prior art related to wireless data formats.
patent final · Mar 1, 2024
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
· IPR2024-00380
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining references like Cohen and Legein, or Francesch and Legein, was motivated by intrinsic evidence and skilled artisan capabilities. This decision significantly impacts the patent owner's portfolio in plasma polymerization coatings for electronics.
patent · Mar 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
US Conec Ltd. challenged 17 claims of Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s patent using grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed optical fiber connectors are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Raven, Kuffel, Wong, and Gniadek. The case was dismissed without a final ruling due to a stipulation not to pursue district court grounds.
patent · Feb 29, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00019
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of its PGR, arguing the Board improperly required seed sequencing under §103 for a plant utility patent. The petition seeks director review to overturn the denial and restore the ability to contest the patent without analyzing deposited seed.
patent denied · Feb 29, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00019
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request for a Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial, leaving Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed patent intact.
patent · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
Samsung submits an authorized response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, defending the Board’s findings that the ’802 patent’s claims are valid and that prior art references, including Sung’146, are properly considered. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
patent · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
Samsung seeks to invalidate a CMP‑pad dresser patent (U.S. 9,138,862) by alleging that prior‑art references, especially Sung’026 and related disclosures, anticipate or render obvious all 20 claims. The petition argues public accessibility of the prior art and cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
Samsung’s IPR against Chien‑Min Sung’s 9,724,802 patent was decided with claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 found unpatentable. The patent owner now petitions the Director to overturn the Board’s findings, arguing errors in the designated‑profile analysis, ignored expert testimony, and improper priority treatment of Sung ’146.
patent instituted · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.
patent denied · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00534
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.
patent · Feb 29, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00019
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
patent null · Feb 29, 2024
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00608
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
patent null · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00534
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
patent null · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
patent null · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00533
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent denied · Feb 29, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00019
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.
patent denied · Feb 29, 2024
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
· IPR2024-00618
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
patent denied · Feb 29, 2024
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00608
A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.
patent instituted · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 29, 2024
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
