US PTAB IP Litigation

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

patent denied · Jan 22, 2024

Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

The USPTO denied DISH Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' video‑compression patent.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

patent instituted · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on its cable‑network patent, arguing the panel misapplied obviousness standards and acted inconsistently with a similar case.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

patent null · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

patent denied · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

patent instituted · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network LLC's IPR petition against Entropic Communications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's argument that combining prior art systems would render the patent obvious.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

patent final · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Motion Offense LLC's patent, challenging claims 17-21 based on obviousness. The Board found that Dropbox demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several claims, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding prior art disclosure and prosecution history.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00287

The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.

patent final · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.

Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering

· IPR2024-00475

Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC