US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 229 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent null · Feb 1, 2024
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00377
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
patent null · Feb 1, 2024
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00369
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
patent instituted · Feb 1, 2024
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00375
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
patent instituted · Feb 1, 2024
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-00340
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
patent final · Feb 1, 2024
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00378
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
patent final · Feb 1, 2024
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00376
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 1, 2024
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00368
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00532
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null · Jan 31, 2024
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
· IPR2024-00520
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00507
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
patent denied · Jan 31, 2024
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00532
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.
patent denied · Jan 31, 2024
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
· IPR2024-00520
Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.
patent denied · Jan 31, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00507
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
patent denied · Jan 31, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
· IPR2024-00389
Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 30, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00508
Apple successfully challenged Immersion’s haptic‑feedback patent in an IPR, resulting in ten claims being found obvious over the Burrough prior‑art reference.
patent · Jan 30, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00516
Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00526
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.
patent instituted · Jan 30, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
· IPR2024-00511
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.
patent · Jan 30, 2024
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00457
Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
· IPR2024-00511
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
patent · Jan 30, 2024
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00526
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and 10x Genomics jointly asked the PTAB to file their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file. The request invokes 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations to protect the settlement details.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00526
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
patent denied · Jan 30, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00514
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for a review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving DISH Technologies’ patent 10,469,554. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
patent · Jan 30, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00512
Aylo Freesites filed Director Review requests challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for eight IPRs against DISH Technologies. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and erred on material facts. The review seeks reversal of the denial.
