US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 232 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Aug 30, 2024
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01347
BMW of North America successfully challenged Foras Technologies Limited's patent via IPR, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on multiple obviousness grounds.
patent instituted · Aug 30, 2024
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01346
BMW of North America successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Foras Technologies, challenging 30 claims related to fault tolerance and processor redundancy. The Board found the petition met the Advanced Bionics framework requirements by introducing new prior art (Arai and Landry).
patent instituted · Aug 30, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01176
Amazon successfully instituted an IPR against Nokia regarding video compression standards, arguing that MPEG-1 teaches or suggests the claimed quantization methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success despite initial claim construction disputes over sequence vs. picture parameters.
patent final · Aug 30, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01364
The PTAB found all 39 claims of patent 8127984 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the claimed 'functional emulation' was obvious when combining prior art references like Willgert and Mooney.
patent final · Aug 30, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01363
The PTAB found all 32 claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board concluded that the combination of Willgert and Mooney, often combined with Holloway and Pitroda, rendered the claimed RFID emulation/voice calling technology obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
patent final · Aug 30, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01362
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art references (Willgert, Mooney, Holloway, Pitroda). The Board adopted the Petitioner's functional interpretation of 'RFID transponder data,' confirming that mobile devices can emulate RFID functionality without physical hardware limitations.
patent final · Aug 30, 2024
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
· IPR2024-01361
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 30, 2024
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01346
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 30, 2024
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01347
BMW challenged claims of Foras Technologies' patent related to switching the boot processor role in multi-processor systems. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove unpatentability over prior art references.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
patent denied · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
patent · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
patent instituted · Aug 29, 2024
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
patent · Aug 28, 2024
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
· IPR2024-01352
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
patent · Aug 28, 2024
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
· IPR2024-01352
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01337
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2024-01277
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
patent · Aug 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01337
Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 28, 2024
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2024-01277
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
