US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 254 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
· IPR2024-01163
Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.
patent null
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01162
Dyson Technology Limited filed an Initial Petition challenging 15 claims of Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent related to hand vacuum cleaner configuration. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious, relying on two distinct combinations of prior art references.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
· IPR2024-01161
Amazon and other petitioners filed a petition challenging NL GIKEN INCORPORATED's '615 patent, asserting obviousness in Smart TV remote control systems. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Cooper and Slotznick to invalidate claims related to universal manual operations.
patent null
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
· IPR2024-01160
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. challenged Infogation Corp.'s patent 6292743, arguing that the claimed use of non-proprietary, natural language formats for routes was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies on various prior art references, including McGrath and Knockeart, to demonstrate that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to make simple modifications.
patent instituted
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
· IPR2024-01159
A petition was filed challenging Autoscribe Corporation's '621 patent, which covers tokenization methods for online payment processing. The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques are obvious over prior art references, specifically PayPal’s Express Checkout and Schlesser systems. The PTAB found sufficient grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) to institute the review.
patent
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 null
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
· IPR2024-01157
Imperative Care, Inc. filed an IPR challenging INARI MEDICAL, INC.'s patent on Intravascular Catheter Valves. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Schaffer or rendered obvious through combinations of Hartley and Eller.
patent null
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
· IPR2024-01156
National Beef Packing Company challenges Patent 9845486 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in microbiological detection methods. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Rayman and Nagar, disclose or render obvious the claimed steps involving sampling, dilution, and assaying.
patent null
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01155
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.
patent
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01154
Reolink Digital challenges KT Imaging's '481 image sensor patent in IPR, arguing the claims are anticipated by Hsu and Chen, or obvious over Chou and Hsu.
patent null
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,910,984 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims covering handheld vacuum cleaners are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combining various prior art references, including Dyson's own publications and patents.
patent
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
· IPR2024-01150
Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.
patent null
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-01145
Major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Ericsson, and Nokia, have filed a petition challenging the validity of a cellular network patent (9560559). The challengers argue that the patented claims are anticipated or obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Centonza and industry standards.
patent null
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
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-01143
Major wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of a patent related to Radio Link Control (RLC) protocols. Petitioners argue that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by existing 3GPP communication standards. The core dispute centers on whether prior art correctly detects protocol errors in wireless transmissions.
patent null
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01142
Multiple major carriers, including AT&T and T-Mobile, have filed a Petition challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '868 patent on grounds of obviousness. The petitioners argue that the core concepts related to beam correspondence and higher layer signaling in 5G NR were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Jung and Xiong. This challenge targets several claims relating to advanced wireless communication methods.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01141
Amazon challenges Nokia's patent on sub-pixel interpolation methods, arguing that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The petitioner asserts a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these existing technologies to achieve predictable improvements.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01140
Amazon has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging 51 claims of Nokia's U.S. Patent No. 7,280,599. The core dispute centers on whether the patent claims related to sub-pixel interpolation in video compression are obvious over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01139
Nokia Technologies Oy faces an Inter Partes Review challenge regarding its video compression patents, specifically concerning sub-pixel interpolation methods. The petitioner argues that combining TML6 and Fandrianto renders the claimed method obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). This proceeding centers on whether the combination of prior art references meets the 103 obviousness standard.
patent null
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
· IPR2024-01135
Petitioner Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833, arguing the methods for maximizing ESPP shares are obvious over prior art combining financial and computer technology.
patent
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
· IPR2024-01135
Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
patent instituted
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01134
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to challenge Optronic Sciences LLC's '733 patent, leading to its institution at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that claims related to OLED/AMOLED pixel structures are invalid under 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness). This moves the dispute into a detailed examination of prior art combinations in display technology.
patent null
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
· IPR2024-01133
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,263,509 held by Optronic Sciences, LLC. The petition asserts that the patent claims related to OLED pixel structure are anticipated (102) or obvious (103) over various combinations of prior art references. This challenges the validity of key display technology patents.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD initiated an IPR challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's OLED display patent (7,586,121). The petitioner asserts that the claimed structural and manufacturing elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Anzai and Yamazaki.
