US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 252 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01231
Charter Communications initiated an IPR challenging Touchstream Technologies' patent on media playback systems, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge centers on combining prior art references like Danciu and Mahajan to show predictable results in command translation.
patent null
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
· IPR2024-01230
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.
patent null
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 null
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.
patent
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
· IPR2024-01227
CommScope and others challenged Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter. The petitioner focuses heavily on how these existing designs meet specific structural limitations of the patented technology.
patent null
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-01226
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.
patent
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01225
Lenovo challenged the validity of a University of Rochester patent related to multiple clock domain microprocessors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Shenai and Georgiou.
patent
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2024-01224
Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.
patent null
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
patent
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01222
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 related to OLED encapsulation technology. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references involving selective deposition and barrier layer methods.
patent
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2024-01221
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.
patent
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01220
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
patent null
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-01219
Deltran USA LLC challenges The Noco Company's '203 patent, arguing that all 11 claimed features related to jump starter/battery charging technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Richardson and Zhao to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in DC-DC conversion and USB charging apparatuses.
patent
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
· IPR2024-01218
CommScope Technologies LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are invalid based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Specifically, they argue prior art references such as Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor render the claimed features unpatentable.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01217
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging 14 claims of ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '658 patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments center on combining various prior art references, including Lindh, Tooher, Kim, and 3GPP specifications, to demonstrate that the claimed LTE network methods were predictable.
patent
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
· IPR2024-01213
NXTGEN TOYS challenges ZipString LLC's string shooter patents (11674774) alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, particularly fibrous surface textures for drag generation, are anticipated or obvious based on prior art combining existing designs with known aerodynamic principles.
patent
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01212
Petitioner Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's '664 Patent, asserting that all claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references in RF ablation technology. The challenge rests entirely on statutory grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103, utilizing multiple prior art patents related to neurotomy devices.
patent
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01211
Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle claims at the PTAB, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner argues that combining multiple prior art references—including Racz, Fitz, and Lee—would have motivated a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art to create the claimed device.
patent
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01210
Avanos Medical challenged Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent, arguing that the claimed deployable filament features are obvious.
patent
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01209
Avanos Medical filed a Petition challenging Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent ('782 Patent). The central argument is that the claimed device is obvious because it merely combines conventional features from prior art references like Racz, Fitz, and Lee. This challenges 27 claims related to advanced medical ablation technology.
patent null
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01208
Motorola Solutions has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Stellar, LLC's surveillance apparatus patent (9912914) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely combinations of existing prior art references related to video recording and data management.
patent null
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
patent null
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
patent null
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01205
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.
