US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 227 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 held by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The challenge asserts that the patent claims relating to organic electronic components are obvious over prior art references Werner and Ma. This action targets core technology in the high-value Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) market.
patent instituted · Feb 7, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-00965
Illumina filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Molecular Loop Biosciences' patents covering dual-indexing in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The petitioner argued the claims were anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Gloor and Parameswaran. The PTAB decided to institute the IPR because the Examiner failed to consider relevant prior art during prosecution.
patent null · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00921
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia Technologies Oy's patents related to hybrid video coding and prediction error encoding. The petition argues that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically Koga, Lin, and Narroschke. Petitioners assert these combinations teach predictable improvements in codec implementation.
patent instituted · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron's patent (11910984) covering surface cleaning apparatus. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness based on Dimbylow and Howes.
patent instituted · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully had its IPR petition instituted against Pictiva Displays International Limited regarding OLED technology claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on obviousness over prior art 'Ma'.
patent instituted · Feb 7, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-00964
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Molecular Loop Biosciences regarding next-generation sequencing technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Parameswaran and Gloor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00921
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.
patent denied · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
patent final · Feb 7, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-00965
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
patent final · Feb 7, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-00964
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00875
SMAXTEC and its affiliate contest ST Reproductive Technologies' Director Review request, defending the Board’s obviousness findings for several claims of a livestock health monitoring patent and offering limited remand only to clarify claim 18 and reconcile claims 6, 19, and 20.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 5, 2024
Capital One, National Association v.--
· IPR2024-00878
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
Capital One, National Association v.--
· IPR2024-00878
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00875
ST Reproductive Technologies requests Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision that invalidated dependent claims 4, 6, and 18‑20 of its livestock‑monitoring patent. The owner alleges the Board misapplied prior‑art references and failed to consider claim‑specific arguments, seeking reversal or vacatur.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
Capital One, National Association v.--
· IPR2024-00878
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00885
In its preliminary reply, the patent owner defends the 8,823,515 patent against smaXtec's IPR petition by asserting that the Trevarthen reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure satisfies the ‘implanted’ claim language.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00839
Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00839
Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.
patent denied · Feb 5, 2024
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00839
The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00839
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
patent null · Feb 5, 2024
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00885
smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.
patent instituted · Feb 5, 2024
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00875
The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.
patent · Feb 5, 2024
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
· IPR2024-00872
ENS Labs Ltd. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Unstoppable Domains Inc.'s patent covering Domain Name Resolution (ENS) methods. The petitioner argues that the core claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references related to blockchain functionality.
