US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 226 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent null · Feb 8, 2024
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-01226
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
· IPR2024-01258
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient grounds for LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD.'s challenge against Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252). The Board established reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references. This moves the case toward a full trial at PTAB.
patent denied · Feb 8, 2024
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2024-01248
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Samsung against Collision Communications' patent covering Multiuser Detection (MUD) technology. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art adequately taught the claimed unique signal parameters, leading to a lack of particularity in the arguments.
patent denied · Feb 8, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2024-01245
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01239
Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.
patent denied · Feb 8, 2024
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01238
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01238
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01225
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00124
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 8, 2024
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
· IPR2024-01259
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–15) based on anticipation and obviousness over various combinations of prior art. However, the Board rejected arguments regarding Claims 3 and 8, finding insufficient articulation in the Petition to support those findings.
patent final · Feb 8, 2024
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01225
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,910,984 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs involving Dyson patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00924, which rendered the Director Review request for IPR2024-00920 moot.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991 and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public policy and resource efficiency.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
patent denied · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
The PTAB denied institution of Amazon’s IPR against Nokia’s wireless patent and dismissed the parties’ joint motion to terminate as moot. The Board granted in part a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
