US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 233 of 235 · 5,620 total
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION v.Manehu Product Alliance, LLC
Lumi Legend has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 33‑36 of U.S. Patent 11,781,703, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness. The petition relies on prior art such as Clary, Juan, Pankros, Tsuji, and Xu. It also argues the patent is eligible for PGR and urges the Board not to deny institution.
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION v.Manehu Product Alliance, LLC
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION successfully petitioned for institution of its PGR against Manehu Product Alliance regarding television mounting systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard by asserting claims 33-36 are likely unpatentable over a combination of Clary and Tsuji, despite patent owner arguments about mechanical interference.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories successfully secured institution status for an IPR against Eye Therapies, LLC regarding ophthalmic formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on the combination of prior art references.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Chevron and Scout filed a joint motion to stay Pilot's infringement suit while the PTAB reviews the disputed patent in IPR2024-00385. The district court granted the stay, administratively closing the case pending the PTAB's final written decision.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the IPR on patent 8,505,332. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property over a CO₂‑capture oil‑recovery patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google successfully oppose Headwater Research’s untimely Director Review request, leaving the PTAB’s finding that the ’733 patent’s claims are unpatentable intact.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch defends its IPv6 transition patent against Juniper’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that key references are not prior art.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response opposes Juniper’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,451,844, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that Li‑2 is not prior art. The owner seeks denial of institution.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper’s IPR challenge to Monarch’s IPv4/IPv6 inter‑domain routing patent is countered with a sur‑reply asserting that the cited prior art is either not publicly available or teaches different solutions, and that new arguments are procedurally improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google have filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of a second IPR covering all 30 claims of Headwater’s ’733 patent. They argue the denial was improper and that the Patent Owner’s stipulation fails to protect their products from future litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung and Google's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341 concerning patent 8,406,733.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google petitioned for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google filed a second IPR petition challenging all claims of Headwater Research's patent, but the USPTO denied institution based on a post‑filing PO stipulation. The petitioners request Director review, arguing the denial misapplies § 314(a) and threatens broader litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request in IPR2024-00341, instructing Samsung and Headwater Research to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days. No new evidence may be introduced and briefing is limited to 15 pages.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenges Monarch Networking Solutions' '844 patent, arguing that the claimed IPv4/IPv6 transition technology is obvious. The petition asserts that prior art references Li and Li-2 combine to teach the method of constructing an IPv6 address using a port number for multiplexing.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT challenges Pilot Intellectual Property's patent claims in an IPR, arguing the methods for recovering natural gas liquids are obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of prior art references like Aycaguer and Soldati to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics challenged Headwater Research's patent (8406733) in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The challenger asserts that combining teachings from Houghton and Ogawa, or Houghton-Ogawa with Hwang, renders the claimed device provisioning and secure communication methods predictable.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions' patent 8451844, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to IPv6 transition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google's attempt to challenge Headwater Research's patent (8406733) was denied by the PTAB due to a parallel IPR proceeding already being active.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of Headwater Research's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding obviousness, leading to the institution of the case. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of wireless communication technology standards and prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Board found all challenged claims of patent 8406733 unpatentable over prior art references TS-23.140 and Ogawa by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on demonstrating that conventional design choices, such as using SSL/TLS and implementing modems, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.