US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 272 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00624
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00623
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
patent null
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00622
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
patent null
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
patent null
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00620
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
patent instituted
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
· IPR2024-00618
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenged Data Health Partners, Inc.'s '812 Patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing the system for tracking client progress was obvious over various combinations of prior art. The PTAB determined that institution is appropriate, allowing the challenger to proceed with its grounds of obviousness (103).
patent instituted
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
· IPR2024-00616
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.
patent null
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
· IPR2024-00615
SAP America challenges ISIX IP LLC's patent (6308178) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the data transformation and migration claims are obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Brann, Suresh, and Beauchamp to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00614
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
patent instituted
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00613
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge patent 10715235 in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art related to Butler matrix technology. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and granted institution.
patent null
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00612
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
patent null
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
· IPR2024-00611
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.
patent null
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
· IPR2024-00611
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
patent null
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00608
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
patent null
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00606
Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.
patent instituted
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00607
T-Mobile and other petitioners successfully petitioned to challenge Wireless Alliance's patent (9144106) regarding carrier management methods. The petition raised grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art from Lee et al. and Kim et al., leading the Board to institute the review.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00605
Amazon challenges Nokia's HEVC patent (US 10,536,714) on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petitioner argues that prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, Nakamura, and WD4 teach the claimed methods for reducing redundant motion vector candidates in video coding.
patent null
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00604
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (10536714) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed method for improving motion vector prediction was already known through prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, and Nakamura. This is an opening petition challenging a core technology in video compression standards.
patent instituted
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
· IPR2024-00603
Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.
patent null
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
· IPR2024-00602
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
patent instituted
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
patent instituted
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
patent instituted
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
patent null
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
· IPR2024-00597
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
