US PTAB IP Litigation

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2024-01379

Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 20 of Adaptive Spectrum's ’996 patent, asserting obviousness over Klayman and Agarwal in view of Starr. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.

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

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of U.S. Patent 11,562,402, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art advertising systems (Grannan, Chung, Yang, Ramaiyer) and that discretionary denial is not justified.

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

· IPR2024-01400

Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,365,026, arguing that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art container patents.

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

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.

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

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over Hinton and Varghese prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.

· IPR2024-01441

Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.

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

· IPR2024-01420

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).

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

· IPR2024-01401

The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.

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

· IPR2024-01401

The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.

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

· IPR2024-01400

The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al. based on combinations of prior art references like Burchia and Metabowerke. The Board specifically found motivation to combine these references based on functional benefits.

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

· IPR2024-01400

The Director denied institution of IPR for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. against Klein Tools, citing the Fintiv factors and the parallel ITC investigation.

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

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9586659). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 16-23, 26-28 are obvious over prior art references Evolo and Woolley.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2024-01379

The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'

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

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot successfully petitioned for IPR institution against RavenWhite Security's patent (10594823), challenging claims 1-10 on grounds of obviousness over Hinton and Varghese. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Home Depot could prevail, allowing the dispute to proceed.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.

· IPR2024-01451

Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.

patent denied · Sep 16, 2024

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01447

Western Digital seeks a Director Review to overturn an IPR finding that its MTJ memory patent is obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misapplied the APA, misread prior‑art references, and erred on expectation‑of‑success analysis.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01447

The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.

ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.

· IPR2024-01445

ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01437

Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB’s final decision on its presentation‑dongle patent, arguing the Board gave insufficient weight to a key license with competitor Crestron and other commercial‑success evidence. The petition contends the Board misapplied precedent on nexus and secondary considerations.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01436

Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01436, arguing that the documents contain confidential licensing and financial data. The Board must decide whether good cause exists to keep the material sealed.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2024-01436

Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink's challenge to patent 10762002. Yealink may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.