US PTAB IP Litigation

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review of US Patent 11,906,794 after reaching a settlement, citing resolved disputes and early‑stage proceedings.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a request to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the Board review.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over a magnetic‑connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.

Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.

Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,880,075. The parties jointly requested the settlement be kept confidential and moved to withdraw the petition, ending the proceeding.

Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 and jointly moved to withdraw the inter partes review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-01068

The PTAB instituted an IPR against ParkerVision’s ’528 mixed‑signal chip patent, covering 30 claims, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel TI IPR.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

Arashi Vision (Insta360) submits a response urging the Director to deny GoPro’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied obviousness analysis to the Thomason and Voss references and that GoPro’s new arguments are forfeited or lack a nexus. No procedural error is identified, and the Director should reject the review.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

GoPro has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s finding that Insta360’s claims 7‑8 and 17‑18 are unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis, ignored unpredictable‑effect evidence, and misinterpreted claim language.

patent denied · Jun 20, 2024

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01041

Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter‑partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

The USPTO denied Insta360’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on GoPro’s camera patent (US 11,336,832). The denial leaves the original PTAB ruling in place.

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-01066

The PTAB instituted an IPR against NXP’s challenge to ParkerVision’s ’177 patent, focusing on claim 14, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel Texas Instruments IPR.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01042

The IPRs concerning Patent 8,924,543 were terminated after Verizon Wireless and other carriers reached a settlement with Headwater Research. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01042

Verizon, T‑Mobile, and AT&T have settled with Headwater Research and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 8,924,543, ending the proceeding before any merits decision.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01041

Verizon Wireless and other carriers settled with Headwater Research, leading to the termination of an IPR over patent 8,924,543 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.

Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.

Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.

Senko Advanced Components challenged US Conec Ltd.'s patent covering fiber optic connector designs, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition targets multiple claims using grounds based on Section 103 (obviousness).

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-01068

NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.

NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2024-01066

NXP USA filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's patent claims, arguing that Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts obviousness based on combinations of prior art references related to signal processing and RF down-conversion.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed a Petition challenging key claims of GoPro's patent covering horizon leveling and video stabilization techniques. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Thomason, Pacurariu, Watanabe, Voss, and Derbanne.

VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.

· IPR2024-01045

VusionGroup SA et al. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, challenging 21 claims related to retail inventory management. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references using computer vision techniques.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01042

Verizon Wireless filed an IPR petition challenging 40 claims of a network service plan provisioning system, asserting obviousness over prior art references Poh, Maes, and Burnett. The challenge centers on whether combining these existing technologies would motivate the claimed dynamic policy updates in wireless networks.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01041

Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.