US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 218 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Sep 20, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01461
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s copper foil patent, upholding the finding that obviousness claims lacked sufficient evidence.
patent denied · Sep 20, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01460
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against SK nexilis Co., Ltd. was denied institution by the PTAB, despite a 'close call' on the merits. The denial hinged primarily on procedural factors related to scheduling and parallel litigation.
patent instituted · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
patent denied · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01432
The PTAB denied SAP's request to institute IPR against Cyandia's patent (8751948), citing copending district court litigation in Texas. The Board determined the overlapping issues made IPR redundant.
patent instituted · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
patent instituted · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC regarding semiconductor fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent final · Sep 20, 2024
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01467
The PTAB issued a final decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones. The Board concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate non-hindsight motivation for combining the references or making the necessary technical modifications, citing lack of support for millisecond time resolution.
patent final · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board adopted a broad claim construction, defining 'current state' to include both online and offline device states, which facilitated the finding of obviousness.
patent final · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
patent final · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art reference Norström disclosed key features, leading to findings of anticipation for most claims. For others, combinations of Yin and Koshimizu were deemed obvious over the patent.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
Deere & Company has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,533,300, which covers skid‑steer automatic grading technology. The petition argues the Board misapplied teaching‑away doctrine to the Funk reference and ignored advantages of the claimed combination.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
· IPR2024-01459
Court decision.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
· IPR2024-01459
Stara filed a petition for Director Review seeking to invalidate claims of AGCO’s 11,665,989 patent covering rotating toolbar mechanisms for agricultural implements. The petitioner alleges the Board erred in denying institution, citing multiple prior‑art references that disclose all claim elements. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
· IPR2024-01459
STARA has requested Director Review of IPR2024-01459 against AGCO's patent 11,665,989. The patent owner may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
Deere & Company requested a Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against David’s Dozer V‑Loc System’s patent. The Director denied the request, leaving the original denial in place.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
· IPR2024-01459
The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
Court decision.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
· IPR2024-01459
STARA petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against AGCO's 11,665,989 patent covering a farm implement contouring toolbar, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 15 claims.
patent · Sep 19, 2024
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
· IPR2024-01459
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any challenged claim. The grounds relied on obviousness (103), utilizing combinations of prior art references including Hubalek and KR’062.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a dozer stabilizer patent (10533300). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds based on Funk and Lewis.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 18, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01390
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 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 · Sep 18, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01390
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
