US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 259 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jul 15, 2024
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-01167
Petitioners Kia and Toyota filed a petition challenging Emerging Automotive LLC's patent on vehicle access control systems using electronic keys. The challenge centers on multiple grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing prior art from Kleve, Hatton, Mikan, Xiao, and Sekiyama.
patent null · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01057
Roku, Inc. has filed an IPR challenging the validity of the '848 patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (103), arguing that specific combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
patent null · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01056
Roku challenges the validity of Patent '896, asserting that its claims related to audience behavior analysis are obvious over prior art references. The petition focuses on combining elements from Feininger, Ramaswamy, and Conklin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
patent null · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01054
Roku challenges U.S. Patent No. 8510768, owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, over methods for audio content identification and fingerprinting. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious combinations of prior art references involving signal processing techniques.
patent · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01053
Roku challenges a patent held by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the challenged claims related to audience measurement are obvious over prior art.
Petitioner Roku relies on combinations of references like Feininger and Ramaswamy/Conklin to demonstrate predictable results in media playback analysis.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01178
The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01178
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.'s IPR challenge against California Institute of Technology et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient support for key prior art disclosures in Saxonov from the provisional application, leading to a failure to establish unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01177
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. failed to institute an IPR against California Institute of Technology et al.'s patent covering multiplexed analyte detection. The Board found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient support for key disclosures in the asserted prior art (Saxonov) during the initial petition phase.
patent instituted · Jul 15, 2024
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-01167
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01057
The PTAB denied Roku's request to institute IPR against the '848 patent, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the failure of the Petitioner to prove that key prior art (Seet) was entitled to its provisional filing date due to lack of written description support for non-audio media.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01056
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied by the PTAB after failing to meet institution standards on grounds of obviousness and novelty. The Board rejected arguments regarding 'content offset' data and content identification results disclosed in prior art references like Feininger and Ramaswamy.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01054
Roku's IPR against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied because the key prior art reference (Seet) lacked written description support for non-audio media, preventing it from qualifying as prior art to the challenged patent.
patent denied · Jul 15, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01053
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the threshold for institution in all challenges. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding 'content offset,' requiring it to be relative to a reference point within the content.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 15, 2024
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-01167
The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.
patent · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, contending that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition argues the Board misapplied the discretionary denial standards.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
The PTAB denied Jumio's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the facial‑recognition patent owned by FaceTec, leaving the institution standing.
patent · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00108
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
patent instituted · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00106
Jumio challenges FaceTec's biometric patent in IPR2025-00106. The petitioner argues the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that no discretionary denial applies. The Board’s institution decision remains in effect pending director review.
patent denied · Jul 11, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
· IPR2025-00101
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of its IPR was rejected, leaving the Board’s earlier decision intact. The Patent Owner contended the petitioner introduced new arguments and failed to provide claim constructions, justifying the denial.
patent · Jul 11, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
· IPR2025-00101
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
patent · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00108
Jumio filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no settled expectations justify discretionary denial.
patent · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00108
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s institution of IPR2025‑00108 against Jumio, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the proceeding duplicates ongoing district‑court litigation.
patent · Jul 11, 2024
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00107
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and highlights time‑bar concerns.
