US PTAB IP Litigation

8,722 annotated decisions

8,722
Decisions
1
IP Types
0
Courts
Browse by type: patent 8,722

Page 219 of 364 · 8,722 total

patent · Sep 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR.

patent · Sep 18, 2024

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.

· IPR2024-01458

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.

patent · Sep 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

patent instituted · Sep 18, 2024

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.

· IPR2024-01458

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.

patent Final Written Decision · Sep 18, 2024

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.

· IPR2024-01458

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot and Security Technology reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01420 covering patent 11,562,402. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions.

patent denied · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Klein Tools responded to Milwaukee Electric Tool’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board correctly instituted the IPR under Fintiv and §314. The petitioner emphasizes that the ITC overlap arguments are misplaced and that the merits of the petition are strong.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Security Technology, LLC asks the PTAB Director to deny institution of an IPR filed by Home Depot, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors and that the petitioner's expert testimony is weak. The request highlights the close timing of the district‑court trial and the substantial prior investment in parallel litigation.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot and Security Technology settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,562,402. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 17, 2024

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over a storage‑container patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv factors and ignored claim overlap with a parallel ITC proceeding.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

Court decision.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.

patent denied · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution of RavenWhite Security's patents intact.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 17, 2024

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

RavenWhite Security has filed a Request for Director Review to block an IPR on its web‑cookie patent, arguing the PTAB panel misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors and that the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are weak. The request seeks a denial of institution for claims 1‑10.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot and RavenWhite Security have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 10,594,823. The Board is asked to authorize termination of the proceeding.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot filed a response defending the PTAB’s institution decision, asserting that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding with the IPR and that the Board correctly interpreted claim language.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01401

Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s ’952 container‑assembly patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Sep 17, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.

· IPR2024-01441

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of InterDigital’s ’556 patent covering in‑loop video filtering, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.