US PTAB IP Litigation

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01287

The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01286

Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01285

Motorola Solutions successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stellar, LLC's patent (8928752) covering circular buffer memory management. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple obviousness grounds over prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiedler.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01285

The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01284

Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01284

The Director granted review and vacated institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar, ultimately denying the petitions.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01267

Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.

Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC

· IPR2024-01241

Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.

patent Final Written Decision · Sep 8, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01232

The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2024-01287

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'

patent final · Sep 8, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01231

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.

patent · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.

patent · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

patent null · Sep 5, 2024

Court decision.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00860

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.

patent null · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom's CGM needle insertion claims in an IPR, asserting that the anti-rotation features are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references like Pace, Chae, and Lundquist. The petitioner argues various combinations of these disclosures render numerous claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

patent denied · Sep 5, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

· IPR2024-00860

The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 2, 2024

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00521

Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care have settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites a confidential settlement agreement and the lack of any Board decision on the merits.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC

· IPR2024-00559

Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled eight IPRs. The Board terminated the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

· IPR2024-00565

Monarch’s preliminary response argues that Juniper’s obviousness grounds fail because the cited references do not teach a “home gateway” and Li‑2 is not a printed publication, urging the PTAB to deny institution of the IPR.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 2, 2024

Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

· IPR2024-00565

Juniper seeks to invalidate Monarch’s ’845 patent covering IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, arguing the claims are obvious over Ananda, Wetterwald, and RFC4380 and requesting the PTAB to institute an IPR.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC

· IPR2024-00559

Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.