US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 243 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01448
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
· IPR2024-01476
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Haptic’s 9,996,738 patent covering accelerometer‑based gesture control. The petition asserts obviousness over Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, and Orr references and seeks institution of the proceeding.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01449
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,123,463 covering MRAM technology, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
patent
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
· IPR2024-01457
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01461
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 10,811,689 patent covering electrolytic copper foil for lithium‑ion batteries, asserting that claims 1‑10 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01397
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01386
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01384
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,884,403 covering MRAM technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and seeks institution of the trial.
patent
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01401
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s ’952 container‑assembly patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01385
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all four claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
patent
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01394
NormShield challenges BitSight’s ’615 patent on network‑asset mapping, asserting that the claims are obvious over Longo, McNab, Maltego, Zhang, Tippett and Shull. The petition lists seven §103 grounds covering all 100 claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01396
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 patent on data‑usage monitoring in mobile devices, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-01419
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01389
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts' 8,520,000 patent covering interactive chart embedding. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that there is no objective evidence of patentability.
patent
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01388
Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
· IPR2024-01382
CommScope petitions to invalidate Belden’s 11,740,423 patent covering modular fiber‑optic cassette trays, asserting that prior art references render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,179,359 patent covering differentiated network‑access policies for mobile devices, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2024-01399
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
· IPR2024-01354
Roku has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dolby’s 1993 audio‑compression patent, arguing that all 17 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny the petition under discretionary statutes.
patent
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01351
Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.
patent
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
· IPR2024-01387
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
· IPR2024-01371
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of the 372 Patent, arguing they are obvious over Shao‑028 and Shao‑423. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
