US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 271 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
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.
patent null
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
Roku challenges Intent IQ's patent 10715878 in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references (Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, Hahn, Xu, Gerace) to establish obviousness across various technical features related to targeted advertising and cross-device tracking.
patent null
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-00665
FERVO ENERGY CO. challenges Ormat Technologies' patent (7320221) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over multiple combinations of geothermal and hydrocarbon prior art. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on references including Rinaldi, Mims, and Swenson.
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00650
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks, Inc. challenges R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8,190,610) in a Petition proceeding, arguing that the claimed enhancements to MapReduce are obvious. The petitioner contends that combining existing distributed processing techniques from Pike and Chowdhuri renders the claims predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00649
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00647
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
patent null
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
· IPR2024-00646
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's LDO voltage regulator patent (9471074), arguing that the claimed features are obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of references like Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, Ivanov, and Stanescu to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
patent instituted
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
· IPR2024-00643
Capital One National Association filed an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent 8056075 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The petition asserts that the claims are rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references including Fowlow and Kimera.
patent null
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00644
AT&T and its partners filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' '400 Patent, asserting that claims 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated or obvious by the prior art reference R2-1702708. The challenge focuses on dual-connectivity/5G standards, arguing that an Ericsson technical contribution discloses all elements of the challenged claims. This is a critical early stage attack in ongoing litigation against Daingean Technologies.
patent null
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
· IPR2024-00642
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenges the validity of North Atlantic Imports' griddle patent (10660473), asserting that core features are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of references, including Williams and May/Best, to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00640
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
patent instituted
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00639
Under Armour filed an IPR challenging the validity of Athalonz's athletic shoe patent (11375768). The petition asserts that various claimed features, including a gradient compression forefoot platform and uniform heel height, are obvious based on combinations of prior art.
patent instituted
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00638
Under Armour challenges Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (11064760) in an IPR petition, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over multiple prior art references. The petitioner argues the claimed features were conventional knowledge in the field of athletic positioning footwear.
patent instituted
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00636
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's '786 patent for athletic/golf footwear sole design via an IPR petition. The petitioner argued that all eight claimed features were obvious based on prior art references including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The Board subsequently instituted the proceeding.
patent instituted
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00637
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (US 11013291) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The PTAB has instituted the proceeding, finding merit in the challenger's arguments against discretionary denial.
patent instituted
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
Fluidmaster challenged Danco's patent covering toilet/bowl fill valve connections, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The PTAB institution decision found that the claimed quick connector features were predictable based on various prior art references.
patent null
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00634
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
patent null
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00633
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a patent covering water flow regulation in plumbing fixtures, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Schuster and rendered obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on 35 U.S.C. §102 (Anticipation) and §103 (Obviousness).
patent null
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00630
Tesla challenges iQar Inc.'s patent (10850616) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Koebler650. The petitioner argues that combining existing technologies to improve vehicle power management was predictable for a POSITA.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00627
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (11805267), arguing that the claimed weighted bi-directional motion prediction is anticipated by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Karczewicz references to demonstrate that using higher precision for intermediate calculations was already known in the field.
patent denied
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00626
Amazon challenged Nokia's video coding patent (11805267) before the PTAB, arguing that the claimed methods are obvious over prior art references. The Board denied the petition, finding no basis for discretionary denial under §325(d).
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00625
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
