US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 222 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent terminated or settled · Sep 16, 2024
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01175
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 16, 2024
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01175
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 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 · Sep 16, 2024
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01175
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01451
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01447
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01448
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01449
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,123,463 covering MRAM technology, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
· IPR2024-01445
ETN Capital seeks an IPR of FBA Operating Co.’s RV‑leveling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Thorpe, Clark, Garceau and TealLevel. The petition urges the PTAB to institute review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01439
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of Barco’s ’951 patent covering wireless meeting‑room technology, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and arguing that the examiner erred by not considering those references.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01436
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Barco’s wireless presentation patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and examiner error.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01437
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of Barco’s U.S. Patent 11,403,237, alleging obviousness over Kaplan‑Mardiks and Maeda‑Deforche combinations and arguing examiner error for not considering Deforche.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01438
Yealink petitions the PTAB to cancel nine claims of Barco’s ’676 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references (Ono, Uchida, Deforche, Grimshaw). The petition argues the examiner failed to consider these references and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01424
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Rotolight's U.S. Patent 10,197,257, arguing anticipation by Pohlert and obviousness over Mueller and Reichow. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the trial.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01422
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Rotolight’s U.S. Patent 10,845,044 covering customizable lighting effects, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Mueller, Edwards, and Astera.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01423
Aputure Imaging files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Rotolight’s lighting‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Mueller, Edwards, and Astera references. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01421
Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01425
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Rotolight's 2019 lighting system patent, arguing obviousness over Mueller, Showline, and Choong references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent · Sep 16, 2024
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
· IPR2024-01304
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
patent null · Sep 16, 2024
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01175
Petitioner Amazon challenges 40 claims of Nokia's '701 patent in an IPR petition. The central argument is that combinations of prior art, specifically run/level coding techniques (Tsai) and context-switching methods (VCEG-L28), render the claimed image compression technology obvious.
patent instituted · Sep 16, 2024
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01451
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
patent denied · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01449
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. failed its IPR challenge against a patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ). The PTAB denied the petition on obviousness grounds (103), finding that the petitioner could not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent denied · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01448
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
patent instituted · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01447
Western Digital Technologies successfully secured institution of its IPR against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding MTJ technology claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to support obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including Bowen and Sunai.
patent instituted · Sep 16, 2024
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
· IPR2024-01445
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds (Grounds 1-6). The patent, related to vehicle leveling systems using smart devices, was deemed potentially invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combining prior art references like Thorpe and Clark.
