US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2024-01439

Yealink successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Barco N.V., challenging patent 11422951 on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Uchida and Grimshaw, leading to the continuation of the dispute.

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

· IPR2024-01438

Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.

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

· IPR2024-01436

Yealink successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V., challenging nine claims of patent 10762002 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail, citing combinations of prior art references like Kaplan and Ahmed to establish unpatentability.

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

· IPR2024-01437

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Yealink against Barco, challenging 5 claims related to electronic tools for meetings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the combination of prior art references Kaplan and Mardiks.

patent denied · Sep 16, 2024

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2024-01421

Palo Alto Networks successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent (11223601), challenging all 16 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were sufficiently compelling, leading to a trial phase.

UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC

· IPR2024-01304

UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.

patent Final Written Decision · Sep 16, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01451

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.

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

· IPR2024-01447

The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.

patent Final Written Decision · Sep 16, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01439

The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established a motivation to combine prior art elements, particularly regarding local user control over shared content.

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

· IPR2024-01438

The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.

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

· IPR2024-01437

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all five challenged claims unpatentable over prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining references like Kaplan/Mardiks and Maeda/Deforche in the field of Audio/Video Conferencing.

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

· IPR2024-01436

The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

patent instituted · Sep 13, 2024

R‑Pac International seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Adasa’s RFID tag patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused discretion by refusing a preliminary reply and misapplying prior‑art combinations.

Apple Inc. v.--

· IPR2024-01399

Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

patent denied · Sep 13, 2024

Court decision.

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Apple Inc. v.--

· IPR2024-01399

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.

Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC

· IPR2024-01435

Ningbo Linhua Plastic seeks an IPR on Converter Manufacturing’s 10,562,222 patent covering thermoformed plastic trays with smooth edges. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art (Portelli and Meadors) and urges the PTAB to institute the review despite discretionary denial arguments.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01398

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering hybrid devices with personal digital keys and receiver‑decoder circuits, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

patent denied · Sep 13, 2024

r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.

Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC

· IPR2024-01435

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.

patent denied · Sep 13, 2024

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc