US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 220 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 27, 2024
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
· IPR2024-00495
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable over prior art references Chang and Chang II based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's definition of POSITA and corrected a scrivener's error in claim 13, replacing 'hub' with 'host'.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
· PGR2024-00018
CIMBRIA SRL and 3U Vision settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,666,947, leading to a joint motion that terminated the post‑grant review. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
· PGR2024-00018
Cimbria SRL and 3U Vision SRL jointly moved to terminate the Post‑Grant Review of U.S. Patent 11,666,947 after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding on public‑policy grounds.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
· IPR2024-00615
SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
· IPR2024-00615
SAP America and ISIX IP jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the patent file under statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00606
Samsung and Cobblestone Wireless have settled the IPR concerning patent 7,924,802. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00606
Samsung Electronics and Cobblestone Wireless settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2024
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
· IPR2024-00615
SAP America and ISIX IP settled their dispute over a 1999 ERP‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent denied · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
The USPTO denied Cisco Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision in the IPR against Umbra Technologies' patent 10,630,505. The denial leaves the institution decision intact.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
patent instituted · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
Umbra has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction for an “end-to-end tunnel” and seeking to vacate the institution of review for Cisco’s IPR. The Board had instituted the IPR based on an obviousness finding over Hankins and Munger references.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00270
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
· PGR2024-00018
Cimbria SRL, backed by AGCO, has filed a PGR petition challenging all 15 claims of 3U Vision’s automated sorting‑machine patent, asserting indefiniteness and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent denied · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00497 concerning Umbra's patent 10,630,505.
patent · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
Umbra has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-00497. Cisco may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the request.
patent null · Feb 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00606
Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.
patent instituted · Feb 26, 2024
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
· PGR2024-00018
Cimbra SRL challenged 3U Vision's optical sorting patent (11666947) on grounds of obviousness and indefiniteness, specifically over the prior art reference ElMasry. The PTAB preliminarily agreed that it is more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable, instituting the proceeding for trial phase.
patent instituted · Feb 26, 2024
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
· IPR2024-00615
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR against ISIX IP LLC's patent (6308178), finding sufficient evidence that SAP America, Inc. had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Brann and Suresh. The Board adopted key claim constructions, notably rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow view of 'application.'
patent instituted · Feb 26, 2024
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00606
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in challenging Cobblestone Wireless LLC's patent (7924802). The Board preliminarily determined that the preamble 'in a wireless communication channel' is not limiting, allowing the IPR to proceed on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
patent instituted · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (10630505) regarding Global Virtual Network optimization claims. The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness over prior art combinations, specifically citing Hankins and Munger for several key claims.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00497
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board adopted the Petitioner's analysis, concluding that the claimed technology was obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger and Treuhaft.
patent final · Feb 26, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00270
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability for claims 15-20 of the '595 patent. Claims 1-14 were mooted by disclaimer, resulting in no challenged claims being found unpatentable.
patent · Feb 23, 2024
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
· IPR2024-00611
Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.
