US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 253 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Jul 25, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01196
Cisco Systems initiated an Inter Partes Review against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent 10601780, challenging claims related to network security and virtualization. The petitioner successfully argued that the claimed features were obvious in view of prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings.
patent null · Jul 25, 2024
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-01144
Petitioners including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson have filed an IPR challenging 22 claims of a patent related to Handover and Carrier Aggregation. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious when combining prior art references like Nokia or Ericsson with relevant 3GPP standards. This filing initiates a major challenge against the patent's validity.
patent instituted · Jul 25, 2024
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
· IPR2024-01213
NXTGEN TOYS successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ZipString LLC regarding string shooting devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds, specifically addressing whether YouTube videos qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
patent denied · Jul 25, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01196
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
patent denied · Jul 25, 2024
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-01144
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 25, 2024
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
· IPR2024-01213
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung, Google and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,081,993, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has been asked to dismiss the proceeding based on the settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00978
Samsung, Google and Cerence reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 7,395,078. The Board found good cause to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00978
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
patent null · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00978
Samsung challenged Cerence's patent 7,395,078 regarding voice messaging over SMS channels by asserting obviousness (103). Petitioners presented multiple grounds combining prior art references (Dolan, Freedman, Halonen) to demonstrate the claimed methods were taught or suggested.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00979
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-00978
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the PTAB review of patent 11,808,994.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
patent · Jul 23, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00046
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,808,994 patent covering small form‑factor fiber‑optic connectors, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, anticipation and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
patent · Jul 23, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-01158
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi.
The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
patent instituted · Jul 23, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-01158
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 23, 2024
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-01158
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple independent and dependent claims unpatentable. The grounds were anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), based on the prior art reference Tateishi.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01205
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024‑01205, arguing the Patent Owner’s Director Review request is moot and the Board acted correctly under Fintiv factor analysis.
patent · Jul 22, 2024
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
