US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-01078

Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.

patent · Jun 28, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· IPR2024-01077

Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· IPR2024-01036

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging ASUS's '052 patent claims related to random access procedures in LTE/5G technology. The challenge asserts that the claimed elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references, including Tang, Löhr, and Tirronen.

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01022

Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01021

Google LLC has petitioned the PTAB, arguing that U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978 is unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Kahn, Krasner, and Vingralek renders numerous claims obvious in the field of networked data storage.

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01020

Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01019

Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7814170) on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed distributed file system architecture is predictable when combining prior art references Kahn et al. and Vingralek R.

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01018

Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed distributed network features are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references Skagerwall and Vingralek would motivate a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art to implement the claims for improved scalability.

patent · Jun 28, 2024

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01017

Google LLC challenges Kove IO, Inc.'s patent claims regarding distributed data management under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is anticipated by Kahn et al. and rendered obvious when combined with Vingralek R.

patent · Jun 28, 2024

T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC

· IPR2024-00946

T-Mobile USA challenges Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, arguing that its claims covering multi-carrier transmission are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that known techniques and combinations of references render the patented technology predictable.

FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.

· IPR2024-00933

FormFactor challenges Technoprobe's '885 patent via an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior art references. The petitioner relies heavily on reference Kim, combined with Schmid, Fan, Bross, and a 2016 SWTest Presentation to invalidate multiple claims related to probe card design.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· PGR2024-00039

Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Ouraring's patent (11874702) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board determined that the challenges based on prior art met the institutional threshold for trial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.

· PGR2024-00038

The PTAB denied a Post-Grant Review filed by Samsung against Oura Health's patent '701 because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.

AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· IPR2024-01121

AT&T Services Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. was denied by the PTAB, as all six Fintiv factors weighed in favor of discretionary denial. The Board found that procedural issues, including substantial delays and parallel district court litigation, outweighed the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding beam management technology.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01119

The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding gesture recognition technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Ahn and Chaudhri for Claim 2.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01118

Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge 91 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB, citing excessive and unconcise parallel petition filings.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01117

Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge nine claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited excessive parallel filings and lack of conciseness in arguments as the reason for denying institution.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01116

Apple Inc.'s motion to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was granted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over Ahn and Chaudhri for numerous claims related to gesture recognition and user interface transitions.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01115

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references Ahn and Chaudhri.

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01114

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Smith Interface Technologies' patent, citing the need for judicial efficiency despite the complex claim structure. The Board determined that only three of seven concurrent petitions were justified.

Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company

· IPR2024-01105

Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully petitioned PTAB to challenge Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10966915), leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a material error in allowing claims over prior art like Lesniak and Native/Bianchi '254.

Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company

· IPR2024-01104

Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned against Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent, leading the PTAB to institute the case after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board found multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) across various claims using combinations of prior art references.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC

· IPR2024-01101

The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Aylo Freesites Ltd in challenging WellcomeMat's patentability. The challenge focused on claim 17, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.