US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 248 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
· IPR2024-01365
Ewald Dörken AG has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Schaeffler’s wheel‑bearing coating patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
patent
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01301
Harman International Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,805,692, asserting that its wearable audio claims are obvious over prior art such as Jannard, Wittenberg, Relan, and Barnes. The petition argues that discretionary exclusions do not apply and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01453
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Procomm's 2006 DAS gain‑control patent, arguing that the Solum prior art anticipates every limitation. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Google LLC v.--
· IPR2024-01320
Google has filed an IPR petition against Proxense’s ’960 patent, seeking to invalidate all 20 claims on the basis of obviousness over Giobbi, Dua and Broadcom references, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
· IPR2024-01290
Ubiquiti has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01289
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of the ‘022 patent covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
patent
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01305
Genius Sports has filed a petition for inter partes review of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial under §314(a).
patent
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01288
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Omachron’s hand‑vacuum patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed features are well‑known and combinable.
patent
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
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01308
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697 covering live‑sports video and data streaming. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey and Herzog and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel claims 1‑9.
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01287
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 9,287,982 covering DOCSIS‑EPON auto‑configuration. The petition argues all 11 claims are obvious over the Bernstein and Tsuge patents, alone or combined with the MEF 6.1 specification, and that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01335
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’905 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on Ludtke and Kon prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01286
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,942,378, which covers multicast encryption in passive optical networks. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art including Murakami, RFC 1112, RFC 4601, and the Yen patent application, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
patent
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01313
Motorola Solutions petitions the PTAB to invalidate Stellar’s 10,523,901 surveillance‑camera patent, arguing all 25 claims are obvious over a mix of prior‑art references.
patent
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-01279
Bitsgap and co‑owners have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 11,449,930 patent covering cross‑border trading with real‑time currency conversion, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01323
Quotient Technology seeks to invalidate 35 claims of a digital‑coupon patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier coupon‑processing publications. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
patent
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2024-01312
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
patent
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01280
Ecto World petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,925,202 covering an electrically‑powered vaping article, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over Takeuchi, Pienemann, Kim and Susa references and lack written‑description support.
patent
Genius Sports v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01311
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, asserting that claims 16‑30 are obvious or anticipated over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
· IPR2024-01316
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over Hinton and Varghese prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01310
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.
patent
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01372
Nikon and other camera makers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Optimum Imaging’s in‑camera aberration‑correction patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier camera‑technology patents.
patent
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
· IPR2024-01342
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 8,886,753, which covers personalized media programming. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. Institution of the IPR is requested.
patent
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
· IPR2024-01309
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
