US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 263 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Jul 6, 2024
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01006
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
patent denied · Jul 6, 2024
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
· IPR2024-01000
The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.
patent denied · Jul 6, 2024
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
· IPR2024-00993
SharkNinja's IPR challenge against Dyson regarding hair styling attachments was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim based on obviousness over prior art references.
patent denied · Jul 6, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00945
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
patent denied · Jul 6, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00944
Google's IPR challenge against Headwater Research failed at the institution stage, with the PTAB denying the petition. The Board found that Google did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability over prior art Rao and 6 US 8,028,060 B1 for claims 79 and 83.
patent instituted · Jul 6, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00942
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
patent instituted · Jul 6, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00943
Google LLC successfully secured institution in its IPR against Headwater Research LLC regarding wireless network capacity management claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art references Rao and Fadell.
patent denied · Jul 6, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
· IPR2024-00897
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging five claims related to channel estimation in MIMO systems. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 6, 2024
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
· PGR2024-00035
MPL Brands NV successfully convinced the PTAB that all 20 claimed claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found obviousness over multiple prior art references, including PCAN, Metzger, and Kaminski, in a final decision.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 6, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00943
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found successful anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Rao.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 6, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00942
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.
patent denied · Jul 5, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
· IPR2024-00855
Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.
patent null · Jul 5, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
· IPR2024-00855
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.
patent denied · Jul 5, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
· IPR2024-00855
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
patent · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
American GNC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found its MEMS gyroscope patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misidentified the key signal, relied on an unsupported modification, and ignored strong non‑obviousness evidence. Nintendo’s challenge is therefore under heightened scrutiny.
patent · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
Nintendo’s reply argues that the ’648 patent’s preamble is non‑limiting and that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. It also attacks the patent owner’s § 315(b) time‑bar defense.
patent denied · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
Nintendo’s IPR against American GNC’s 6,671,648 patent was denied. The Board upheld its finding that claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Smith and Tingleff references, and rejected Nintendo’s secondary‑consideration and real‑party‑in‑interest arguments.
patent · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
patent · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.
patent · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
patent denied · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
The USPTO denied Nintendo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00668, leaving the Board’s ruling in place.
patent denied · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
The PTAB denied Nintendo’s petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs against American GNC’s patents, leaving the original rulings unchanged.
patent null · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
Nintendo challenges American GNC's '648 patent, arguing that its inertial measurement unit (IMU) technology is obvious. The petition cites multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in claims 1 and 4.
patent null · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
Nintendo challenges American GNC's angular rate sensor patent (6508122), arguing the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Fujiyoshi with Townsend or Cox renders the claimed technology predictable in the field of MEMS sensors.
