US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 259 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
· IPR2024-01010
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging 12 claims of a Bell Semiconductor LLC patent related to Ball Grid Array (BGA) packaging reliability. The petitioner asserts that all claims are unpatentable over prior art by demonstrating predictable modifications using combinations of known semiconductor package designs and stress mitigation techniques.
patent null
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01008
Intel Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson's patent on deblocking filter features, asserting obviousness over various prior art references. The core arguments focus on how asymmetric decision-making and specific offset equations are routine modifications of existing video compression techniques.
patent null
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01006
LG Energy Solution filed an IPR Petition challenging claims related to lithium ion batteries and nanomaterials. The petitioner argues that the claimed compositions are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, such as Ohata/Kavan or Lee/Wepasnick.
patent
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01005
LG Energy Solution has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,636,649, arguing that the claims related to Carbon Nanotube Composites are obvious. The challenge relies heavily on multiple prior art references demonstrating that the claimed features were already known in the field.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01004
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging Staton Techiya's patent (11710473) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenger argues that the claimed audio processing and ambient sound control features are merely combinations of prior art teachings from Kirsch, DiCenso, Goldstein, and Woodruff. This challenge targets a broad range of claims related to earpiece functionality.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01003
Samsung filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,710,473 owned by Staton Techiya, LLC. The core argument asserts that the patent's claims related to ambient sound control are obvious based on combinations of various prior art references. This challenge is tied to ongoing district court litigation.
patent null
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01002
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
patent null
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01001
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
patent null
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
· IPR2024-01000
MPL Brands NV challenges BuzzBallz's container patent (11,932,441) via Petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references related to plastic and metal container design.
patent null
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00999
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. filed a Petition asserting that MHL Custom, Inc.'s personal hydrofoil watercraft patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that various prior art references combine to render the claimed design obvious.
patent null
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00998
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9359044) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as passive static stability and specific airfoil designs, are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
patent
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
patent
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00996
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
patent null
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00995
Anker Innovations challenges Powermat Technologies' patent 9,083,204 regarding inductive charging technology. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references, including Onishi and Purdy.
patent
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
patent null
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
· IPR2024-00993
SharkNinja filed an IPR petition challenging Dyson's patent (11044979) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed hot air styling methods are predictable combinations of prior art, specifically combining Saito and Lindsey references.
patent instituted
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00992
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
patent
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-00991
Major carriers including AT&T and T-Mobile have filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,736,883, which covers cellular network inter-node connectivity methods. The Petitioners argue that the patent is invalid under Sections 102 and 103 based on prior art references Centonza and Han.
patent null
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00990
Weatherford U.S., L.P. has initiated an IPR challenge against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s patent covering gravel packing systems for oil and gas applications. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art developed by ExxonMobil/Mobil research groups dating back to the 1990s. This action targets multiple claims related to differential pressure shunt tubes and screen geometry.
patent
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00989
Juniper Networks filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petition asserts that several claims related to multicast routing and switch fabric are obvious over prior art references Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng, and Rao under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This proceeding addresses the core validity of networking technology patents.
patent
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00988
IKEA Supply AG has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,554,126 held by Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., asserting that the LED claims are unpatentable. The petition relies heavily on grounds of anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references. This challenge targets numerous structural features within light emitting diode technology.
patent null
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00987
IKEA Supply AG has initiated an IPR challenge against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s LED packaging patents, arguing that the core 'U-shaped' electrode structure is anticipated and obvious in existing prior art.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia filed a Petition challenging claims related to Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) Single-Cell Multicast Service (SC-PTM). The petitioners assert that the challenged technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Shin '094 and 3GPP standards.
