US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Feb 9, 2024

Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 9, 2024

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

patent · Feb 9, 2024

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01259

LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

patent denied · Feb 8, 2024

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation have reached a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

patent denied · Feb 8, 2024

Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2024-01224

Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2024-01248

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 10,652,111. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2024-01248

Court decision.

patent denied · Feb 8, 2024

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2024-01224

Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2024-01248

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2024-00109

Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2024-00109

Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.

patent null · Feb 8, 2024

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01258

LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252) covering LED bypass circuits and series lighting technology. The petitioner asserts that claims 1-14 are unpatentable based on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references. This proceeding centers on whether the claimed circuit details were already known in the field.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation