US PTAB IP Litigation

8,574 annotated decisions

8,574
Decisions
1
IP Types
0
Courts
Browse by type: patent 8,574

Page 247 of 358 · 8,574 total

patent

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01423

Aputure Imaging files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Rotolight’s lighting‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Mueller, Edwards, and Astera references. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

· IPR2024-01348

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 10,572,896, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the review.

patent

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01378

Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01393

NormShield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's network‑security rating patent (U.S. 9,973,524). The petition relies on §103 obviousness over McNab, McGovern, and Cole references and argues that FINTIV and §325(d) factors oppose denial.

patent

Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01400

Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,365,026, arguing that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art container patents.

patent

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2024-01421

Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.

patent

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

· IPR2024-01375

Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.

patent

SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.

· IPR2024-01357

Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Feit Electric’s 8,604,678 patent, asserting that its claims on white‑light LED devices with TiO₂ diffusing layers are obvious over several pre‑AIA references.

patent

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01381

CMS Cepcor has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s U.S. Patent 11,014,090 covering gyratory crusher shafts, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that institution should be granted despite parallel litigation.

patent

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01418

Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.

patent

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01380

CMS Cepcor petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s 9,827,568 patent covering a gyratory crusher shaft sleeve, arguing that all ten claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition stresses that the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent

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.

patent

Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.

· IPR2024-01296

Shenzhen Root Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑46 of Chiaro Technology’s ‘380 breast‑pump patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition stresses examiner error and cites strong discretionary factors favoring institution.

patent

r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc

· IPR2024-01416

r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.

patent

Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01425

Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Rotolight's 2019 lighting system patent, arguing obviousness over Mueller, Showline, and Choong references and opposing discretionary denial.

patent

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01406

Shenzhen Kangvape has petitioned an IPR against RAI Strategic's 202‑patent covering an electronic smoking article, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims.

patent

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.

patent

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

patent

TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.

· IPR2024-01341

TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of NTECH's 9,215,261 patent on personalized media programming, arguing obviousness over Whitehead, Cristofalo, and Marcus ’904 references.

patent

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.

· IPR2024-01391

Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.

patent

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC

· IPR2024-01369

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.

patent

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01299

Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent

TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.

· IPR2024-01343

TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 9,923,947 covering custom media programming. The petition relies on three § 103 obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. The Board is asked to institute the review.

patent

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01292

Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.