US PTAB IP Litigation

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-01330

Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01327

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 22 claims of Proxense’s biometric authentication patent, arguing obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and asserting that discretionary denial is improper.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01326

Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.

patent instituted · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01328

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Proxense’s ’905 biometric authentication patent, arguing obviousness over prior art Ludtke and Kon and opposing discretionary denial.

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-01330

The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.

patent denied · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01327

The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.

patent denied · Aug 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-01326

The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review against Proxense's patent because a related review was already underway.

patent Final Written Decision · Aug 20, 2024

Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation

· IPR2024-01330

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 16, 2024

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01262

Google (challenger) failed to prove obviousness of Touchstream's 2013 smart‑TV control patent. The PTAB affirmed all challenged claims, leaving the patent fully intact.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01263

Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01263

Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

patent null · Aug 16, 2024

Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01263

Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.

patent Final Written Decision · Aug 16, 2024

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01262

Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.

Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01262

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01313

Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera patents against a Director Review request. The company argues that the PTAB must honor prior USPTO guidance and a Sotera stipulation, rejecting any discretionary denial.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01313

The PTAB notified the parties that the patent owner filed Director Review requests for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314. Motorola Solutions, the petitioner, may file a concise response within five business days, limited to the issues raised.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01293

Bitsgap Holding and related crypto‑trading entities settled their dispute with Intercurrency Software, resulting in the Board terminating four IPRs before trial. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2024

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.