US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 258 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01040
Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art.
The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
patent null
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01039
Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
patent null
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01038
Canadian Solar Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Maxeon Solar's solar cell patent (11,251,315), asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining a back-contact structure with decades of prior art regarding doping concentrations and metal impurities renders the invention predictable. This initial petition focuses on establishing clear grounds for unpatentability in photovoltaic technology.
patent null
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
· IPR2024-01037
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. 10,287,070 regarding its container design features. Petitioners assert that the claimed elements are obvious over prior art references Beese and King in the food packaging field.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01036
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging ASUS's '052 patent claims related to random access procedures in LTE/5G technology. The challenge asserts that the claimed elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references, including Tang, Löhr, and Tirronen.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung Electronics challenges Staton Techiya's patent claims regarding smart earphones, asserting that the core features are obvious combinations of existing prior art. The petition targets 30 claims related to ambient sound enhancement and acoustic noise cancellation.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01032
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has initiated an IPR petition challenging Patent No. 11683643 owned by Staton Techiya, LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, asserting that the claimed audio signal processing methods are merely combinations of existing prior art. This action targets core noise cancellation technology used in wireless communications.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01031
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Patent No. 11659315 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103) related to active noise reduction and audio assistant devices. The petition asserts that various combinations of prior art references render multiple claims invalid.
patent null
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
· IPR2024-01030
Luxottica of America Inc. has challenged E-Vision Optics' patent on smart eyeglasses, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated by existing prior art. The petition targets 37 claims across multiple grounds of invalidity (102 and 103).
patent null
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
· IPR2024-01027
Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.
patent
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01026
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging VideoLabs' patent 8667304 related to Conditional Access/DRM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are anticipated by prior art reference Russ under Section 102, and are obvious in view of Robert under Section 103.
patent
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of VideoLabs' patent related to Conditional Access and DRM technology. The petitioner argues that the core concept of bridging security systems is anticipated or rendered obvious by multiple prior art references, including Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
patent
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01024
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
patent null
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01023
Roku challenged VideoLabs' patent 8291236 in an IPR proceeding, alleging that the core concepts of bridging security systems were anticipated by prior art.
Petitioner argues that claims related to dynamic encryption and entitlement management are obvious over references like Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
patent null
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01022
Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.
patent null
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01021
Google LLC has petitioned the PTAB, arguing that U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978 is unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Kahn, Krasner, and Vingralek renders numerous claims obvious in the field of networked data storage.
patent null
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01020
Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.
patent null
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01019
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7814170) on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed distributed file system architecture is predictable when combining prior art references Kahn et al. and Vingralek R.
patent null
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01018
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed distributed network features are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references Skagerwall and Vingralek would motivate a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art to implement the claims for improved scalability.
patent
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01017
Google LLC challenges Kove IO, Inc.'s patent claims regarding distributed data management under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is anticipated by Kahn et al. and rendered obvious when combined with Vingralek R.
patent null
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01014
Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.
patent
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01013
LG Energy Solution has filed a petition challenging the validity of Molecular Rebar Design's patents covering advanced nanomaterials for batteries. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references, alongside arguments regarding lack of written description support.
patent null
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01012
LG Energy Solution initiated an IPR challenge against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding patents covering battery/electrolyte materials utilizing nanotubes. The core dispute centers on whether the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Bosnyak-392 and Son. Petitioner argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make these claimed innovations.
patent null
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01011
LG Energy Solution challenges Molecular Rebar Design's patent on lithium-ion battery composites, arguing the technology is obvious based on prior art combinations of carbon nanotubes.
