US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 256 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent final · Jul 19, 2024
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
· IPR2024-01179
The PTAB found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Waldner and Dynatek, along with others like Auld and McIver, rendered the claimed aggregate transferring apparatus predictable engineering.
patent null · Jul 18, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01186
Arashi Vision Inc. challenges GoPro's patent on grounds of obviousness, arguing that existing prior art references render the stabilization claims predictable. Petitioner asserts that combining techniques from Zhou, Kwatra, and Shi provides a reasonable expectation of success for improving video stabilization accuracy. This challenge targets 20 claims related to imaging and video processing.
patent instituted · Jul 18, 2024
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 instituted · Jul 18, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01186
Arashi Vision successfully convinced the PTAB that GoPro's video stabilization patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have combined prior art teachings from Zhou and Kwatra to achieve better stabilization techniques. This decision establishes a significant challenge to the validity of key features in modern video processing patents.
patent denied · Jul 18, 2024
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
· IPR2024-01159
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by M&A Ventures against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patent. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability assertions, particularly regarding claim construction and prior art limitations.
patent final · Jul 18, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01186
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
patent · Jul 17, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01173
Dr. Squatch argues that the PTAB correctly rejected P&G’s attempts to reinterpret claim language and that the challenged deodorant stick claims are obvious over prior art. The petition also rebuts P&G’s RPI argument, maintaining that Dr. Squatch was the sole real party in interest.
patent · Jul 17, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01174
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G’s request to overturn the PTAB’s findings that claim 8 of the ’706 deodorant‑stick patent is obvious. The petitioner argues the Board correctly applied the ASTM D‑1321 standard and rejected P&G’s RPI arguments.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01129
Nike and SherryWear entered a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,869,510.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01129
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,510 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01127
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01125
Nike and SherryWear settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,808,036 B1. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01127
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01126
Nike and SherryWear settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01125
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,808,036 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01124
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without deciding the merits.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01122
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering patent 9,289,016. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01123
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,295,288 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent · Jul 17, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01174
P&G filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn an IPR finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant patent was obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 8’s hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a real‑party‑in‑interest defect.
patent · Jul 17, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01173
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a PTAB decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company challenges the Board’s claim construction, motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner’s failure to disclose real parties in interest.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01128
Nike and SherryWear jointly moved to terminate multiple IPRs after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01128
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,800 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01126
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering SherryWear’s footwear patent (U.S. 10,219,550). The Board cited statutory authority to end the review before any merits were decided.
patent · Jul 17, 2024
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01124
Nike and SherryWear have settled all disputes over patent 9,723,878 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and keep the settlement confidential.
