US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 264 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
Nintendo successfully petitioned for institution against American GNC Corporation's patent claims regarding Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural challenges raised by the Patent Owner.
patent instituted · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against American GNC Corporation regarding angular rate measurement technology (Patent 6508122). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 103, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00668
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
patent final · Jul 3, 2024
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
· IPR2024-00667
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1 and 3 of patent 6508122 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining multiple prior art references, including Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, and Townsend.
patent · Jul 2, 2024
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
· IPR2024-00482
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory business‑confidential provisions, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 2, 2024
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
· IPR2024-00482
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,317,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 2, 2024
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
· IPR2024-00482
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
patent instituted · Jul 2, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00557
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
patent instituted · Jul 2, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00556
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing that combinations of prior art references render the technology obvious. The petitioner focused on combining Astala/Shahoian for gesture recognition and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov for pressure determination techniques.
patent instituted · Jul 2, 2024
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
· IPR2024-00482
Tempur Sealy challenged Purple Innovation's '733 Patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board has instituted the IPR proceedings, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for the challenger on at least one claim.
patent instituted · Jul 2, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00557
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
patent instituted · Jul 2, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00556
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
patent final · Jul 2, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00557
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
patent Final Written Decision · Jul 2, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00556
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Jun 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00039
Samsung’s post‑grant review of Oura’s smart‑ring patent (U.S. 11,874,702) was denied. The Board held that none of the 17 claims were obvious over the cited prior art, affirming the patent’s validity.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 28, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-01101
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
patent instituted · Jun 28, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-01101
Aylo Freesites successfully obtained institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point editing for real‑estate marketing, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and rejecting discretionary‑denial arguments.
patent denied · Jun 28, 2024
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
· IPR2024-01099
Vermont Safety Developments LLC successfully defended its ski‑binding patent against Head Sport GmbH’s IPR petition. The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient in claim construction, §112(f) analysis, and obviousness particularity, and citing unfavorable discretionary factors.
patent · Jun 28, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01105
Procter & Gamble seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant stick patent is obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 15’s hardness test and failed to show a motivation to combine disparate prior art.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 28, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01036
Samsung and ASUS have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,291,052 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination after settlement.
patent · Jun 28, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01105
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G's deodorant stick patent, arguing the claims are obvious over known formulations and that P&G's RPI arguments fail. The Board’s prior findings support the petitioner's position, and the request for director review should be denied.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 28, 2024
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
· IPR2024-01022
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,233,978, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 28, 2024
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-01107
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the review of patent 9,586,659. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under statutory provisions.
patent · Jun 28, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01104
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
