US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 268 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00741
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. filed an opening petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s Patent No. 10,488,871 in the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn and Gutierrez.
patent null
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00740
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. challenged SitePro's patent (11726504) via a Petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Cardamone or Kahn under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petitioner also argues for obviousness based on combining prior art with SCADA under § 103.
patent null
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00739
The Integration Group challenges SitePro's patent (9898014) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are either anticipated by Kahn or rendered obvious when combining Kahn with Gutierrez.
patent null
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00738
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s patent (9342078) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Almadi, Gutierrez, and SCADA. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are fully disclosed by these references in the field of Industrial Automation.
patent null
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00737
The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.
patent null
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-00736
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,574,725 on grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger argues that the claimed method for multimedia distribution is rendered obvious by combining prior art references like Garfinkle and Kosten. This challenge relates to Digital Content Delivery/Video-on-Demand technology.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00735
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.
patent null
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00734
Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.
patent null
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00733
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
patent null
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-00732
Cala Health challenges the validity of EMKinetics' '669 patent by asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Gesotti and Burnett. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology for tremor treatment is already disclosed in the prior art, presenting multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
patent null
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
· IPR2024-00731
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.
patent null
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00730
Multiple major carriers (AT&T, Ericsson, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent covering base station apparatus for transport block segmentation. The challengers argue the claims are anticipated and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 using prior art references Lee and Zheng.
patent null
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
· IPR2024-00729
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
patent null
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
· IPR2024-00728
Intel Corporation initiated this Petition challenging the validity of Ericsson's patent (7151430), asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Taniguchi, Midya, and Raghavan to demonstrate that claimed features in inductive coupling/antenna design were already known or suggested.
patent null
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2024-00726
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
patent null
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00727
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
patent null
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
· IPR2024-00725
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
patent null
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00724
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
patent null
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00723
VIZIO, Inc. challenged claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that the claimed VOD navigation structure was predictable by combining elements from prior art references like Kim, Hunt, and TechnoBuffalo.
patent null
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00722
VIZIO, Inc. challenged the patentability of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s claims regarding adaptive display systems in intelligent televisions. The petitioner argues that these GUI elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references Lider and Eibl.
patent instituted
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00721
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned PTAB to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging claims related to power management in integrated circuits. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00720
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
patent null
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
· IPR2024-00719
MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.
patent null
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
· IPR2024-00718
MediaTek Inc. initiated this Petition challenging the patentability of MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s claims related to Power Management/DVFS technology. The petitioner asserts multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103) based on combinations of prior art references like Nowka, Borkar, Nicol, and Iyengar.
