US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 264 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-00865
WIZ, Inc. challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s patent claims regarding virtual machine forensics and security assessment based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques—such as snapshot analysis for vulnerability detection and risk prioritization—are merely combinations of known prior art.
patent
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-00864
WIZ, Inc. challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s patent on Virtualization Snapshot Analysis, arguing that all 25 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining known techniques for security assessment and usage-based vulnerability prioritization renders the claimed invention predictable.
patent instituted
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-00863
WIZ, Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging several of Orca Security Ltd.'s patents related to virtual machine and cloud asset protection. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Veselov, Price, Hufsmith, and Huseinović.
patent null
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00861
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging DexCom's remote monitoring patents, arguing that the claims are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed methods and systems unpatentable.
patent null
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00860
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.
patent null
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00859
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom's CGM needle insertion claims in an IPR, asserting that the anti-rotation features are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references like Pace, Chae, and Lundquist. The petitioner argues various combinations of these disclosures render numerous claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103.
patent null
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
· IPR2024-00858
Trove Brands has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,905,252 held by Camelbak Products, LLC, concerning drink container cap assemblies. The petition asserts multiple grounds of unpatentability, primarily relying on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Trove Brands utilizes various prior art references, including Samartgis, Leoncavallo, Miller, Gorskey, and Johnson.
patent null
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2024-00856
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
patent null
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
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00854
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
patent null
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00853
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an IPR challenging DexCom's '204 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that combining existing prior art references, such as Gawlick and Valdes, would have rendered the remote monitoring features of the patented invention obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent null
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
· IPR2024-00852
Google LLC has filed an opening petition challenging nine claims of a wearable device patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge asserts that key features, including GPS and biometric authentication, were already known in prior art by 2015.
patent null
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
· IPR2024-00851
RJ Machine Company has filed an opening petition challenging Schneider’s connector apparatus patent (9851030). The petitioner argues that the claimed union nut connectors are conventional and obvious, citing prior art from the oil and gas industry. This challenge targets multiple grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.
patent null
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
· IPR2024-00850
Exotec and other petitioners have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Opex Corporation's '632 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge centers on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou to demonstrate predictable improvements in warehouse efficiency.
patent null
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S
· IPR2024-00849
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,695,151 held by 3Shape A/S. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to dental shade determination are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103).
patent
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00848
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia's '808 patent, asserting that its skip coding mode is obvious over existing prior art references. The challenge focuses on whether combining zero-motion vector (ZMV) and non-zero motion vector (PNZMV) modes constitutes a predictable combination of known techniques in video compression. This dispute involves complex technical arguments regarding standard-setting technologies.
patent null
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00847
Amazon has filed a petition challenging Nokia's video compression patent (7,532,808) at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under Section 103 over prior art references including Karczewicz, Frojdh, and H.263. This action targets core technology related to motion estimation and coding.
patent null
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00846
Microsoft Corporation filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 held by Proxense, LLC. The core argument is that the patent's claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Burger and Robinson.
patent null
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
· IPR2024-00845
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
patent null
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
· IPR2024-00842
EndyMed Medical Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,836 related to skin treatment/radiofrequency ablation. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, Lee).
patent null
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00841
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
patent null
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00840
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a Petition challenging 24 claims of DexCom's '528 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness. The challenge focuses on the combination of real-time user settable low glucose alarms with predicted non-user settable low glucose alarms in CGM systems.
patent instituted
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00839
Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
patent null
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00837
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.
