US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 251 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
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
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.
patent null
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
· IPR2024-01261
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
patent
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01260
3Shape A/S et al. filed an opening petition challenging Medit Corporation's patent (7912257) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed real-time 3D dental scanning method is predictable when combining prior art disclosures from Kopelman and Quadling.
patent
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
· IPR2024-01259
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Seasonal Specialties' patent covering series LED circuits with bypass resistors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are anticipated or obvious based on prior art disclosures in lighting technology.
patent
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
· IPR2024-01258
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252) covering LED bypass circuits and series lighting technology. The petitioner asserts that claims 1-14 are unpatentable based on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references. This proceeding centers on whether the claimed circuit details were already known in the field.
patent null
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2024-01257
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
patent
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
· IPR2024-01253
Hulu challenges Piranha Media Distribution’s patent via Inter Partes Review (IPR), arguing that combining prior art references Eldering-I and Eldering-II renders the claims obvious under 103. The petitioner asserts that user actions like skipping ads constitute a change in viewing parameters, thereby triggering adaptive ad rescheduling taught by the cited prior art.
patent null
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
· IPR2024-01252
Hulu has filed a Petition challenging Piranha Media Distribution's patent covering adaptive ad insertion in video streaming. The core argument is that the claims are obvious when combining prior art references Wu and Doherty. This challenges the validity of the technology used in digital media delivery.
patent null
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2024-01250
Petitioners challenge 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8089946, arguing they are obvious over prior art references like Walton and Learned. The central argument is that supporting legacy protocol modes in multi-user environments was a well-known concept in the field of wireless communications.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2024-01248
Samsung petitions to invalidate Collision's '071 patent, arguing that its Multi-user Detection improvements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioners assert that prior art references (Jin, Baum, Tsai) combine known techniques in MIMO systems to render the claimed features non-inventive.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01246
Samsung challenges an ASUS patent regarding 5G NR power control and PHR triggering using multiple prior art references including Ericsson and Huawei. The core argument is obviousness based on predictable combinations within industry standard-setting documents.
patent null
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2024-01245
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging several claims related to Globally Asynchronous Locally Synchronous (GALS) clocking and Dynamic Voltage Scaling (DVS). The Petition asserts multiple grounds of obviousness, arguing that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed microprocessor architectures predictable.
patent null
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2024-01244
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Intellectual Ventures I LLC's wireless communication patent (7623439) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge centers on whether a minor modification to OFDM cyclic delay diversity is inventive over existing prior art standards.
patent null
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
· IPR2024-01241
Silicon Motion Inc. challenges K. Mizra LLC's '608 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding DDR DRAM memory controllers and timing calibration. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Johnson, Stubbs, Moss, and Liou.
patent null
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
· IPR2024-01240
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging K. Mizra LLC's patent covering digital signal processing and calibration methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on a combination of multiple prior art references.
patent null
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01239
Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.
patent
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01238
Arista Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging Orckit Corporation's patent (8,830,821) on grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge centers on the combination of Doshi’s MPLS path selection with reoptimization techniques from prior art like Guichard and Huang.
patent null
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01237
Arista Networks has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,545,740 held by Orckit Corporation, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed bi-directional link aggregation and hash-based selection mechanisms were already known in prior art references like Bruckman, Basso, and Holdsworth. This challenge targets core networking technology used for load balancing.
patent null
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
· IPR2024-01236
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,331,379 held by K.Mizra LLC. The core challenge asserts that the claimed DRAM controller features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including LaBerge and Bowater.
patent null
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01235
Pascal Technologies has initiated an IPR challenging the patentability of barocaloric cooling and heating agents held by Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Xie, Mañosa, and Patel.
patent
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
· IPR2024-01234
Hugging Face, Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against FriendliAI Inc., arguing that the challenged claims related to Transformer inference optimization are obvious.
patent null
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01233
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR Petition challenging 13 claims of a patent covering cyclonic separation and filtration systems. The petition argues that the claimed vacuum cleaner features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core technology in the high-end cleaning appliance market.
patent null
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01232
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
