US PTAB IP Litigation

patent null · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC

· IPR2024-01229

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging TIAX LLC's patent covering lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Lampe-Onnerud and Takagi, or rendered obvious in view of prior art combinations like Park/Lampe-Onnerud.

patent · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

patent denied · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services challenges Intellectual Ventures II LLC's patent on secure transaction apparatuses, asserting that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on references like Wang et al., Drummond, and TAO to establish grounds for unpatentability under 102 and 103. This initial petition sets up a broad challenge across multiple claim sets related to mobile authentication.

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC

· IPR2024-01229

POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.

patent instituted · Jul 29, 2024

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

patent final · Jul 29, 2024

The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

patent terminated or settled · Jul 28, 2024

The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.

Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.

· IPR2024-01234

Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered to be kept confidential.

patent · Jul 28, 2024

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.

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

Thermaltake has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Lian Li’s illumination‑fan patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01210

Stratus Medical defends U.S. Patent 10,736,688 against Avanos Medical’s IPR petition, arguing that the challenges are based on vague, non‑enabling prior art and lack obviousness. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01209

Stratus Medical defends its RF neurotomy patent against Avanos Medical’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art is non‑analogous, vague, and non‑enabling, and highlighting commercial success and industry praise as evidence of non‑obviousness.

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

Thermaltake seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its LED fan patent unpatentable. The request centers on inconsistent claim‑construction positions between the IPR and parallel district‑court litigation.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 26, 2024

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01187

Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.

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

patent terminated or settled · Jul 26, 2024

Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,301,666. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that the Board should end the proceeding before any merits are decided.

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

patent terminated or settled · Jul 26, 2024

Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial, resulting in termination of the proceedings and confidentiality of the settlement agreement.

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

Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,301,666 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

· IPR2024-01187

Court decision.

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01212

Stratus Medical’s response contends that Avanos’s IPR challenges are legally and technically deficient, emphasizing lack of enablement, teaching away, and strong objective indicia of non‑obviousness.

patent null · Jul 26, 2024

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01211

Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.

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

patent null · Jul 26, 2024

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.

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.

patent null · Jul 26, 2024

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 1-5 of the '336 Patent. The petition asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of various prior art references related to illumination fan assemblies.

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.

· IPR2024-01228

CommScope Technologies LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 49 claims related to modular cassette systems used in fiber optics. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art combinations involving Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter.