US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 273 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
· IPR2024-00595
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
patent null
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
· IPR2024-00593
JPMorgan Chase Bank challenges Identitii Limited's patent (10984413) on grounds of obviousness and lack of written description/enablement. The Petitioner argues the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Kennedy and Kurani-816.
patent null
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
· IPR2024-00590
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition challenging Identitii Limited's patent (10984413), arguing that the claims are obvious under Section 103. The petitioner contends that combining Smith and Seger renders nearly all claimed features predictable for POSITA in financial technology.
patent instituted
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
· IPR2024-00580
Sarepta Therapeutics challenged patent 11680274, owned by The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and Regenxbio Inc., on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding that the challenger's arguments were strong enough to warrant further review.
patent null
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00582
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics technology.
patent instituted
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00578
Cox Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner presented multiple grounds combining prior art references like Renken, Maycock, Kidambi, and Zhang. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness.
patent null
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00579
Cox Communications challenges Entropic's '775 Patent in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
patent null
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-00577
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
patent null
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-00577
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's patent covering jump start apparatus technology, asserting that key claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed USB charging features are obvious when combining prior art references like Richardson with Zhao or Yu with Paparrizos.
patent null
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00573
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense's patent 8646042, asserting that the claims are obvious over various prior art references including Giobbi and Broadcom. The petitioner argues that combining disclosures of PDKs and RDCs makes the claimed hybrid device predictable for proximity-based access control.
patent null
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00570
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation filed a Petition challenging 13 claims of Resonant Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that the claimed linear vibration actuators are predictable combinations of prior art in haptics and control systems.
patent null
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00569
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 covering vibration generation/haptics technology. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of prior art references like Houston and Goldenberg.
patent null
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00568
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 regarding linear vibration actuators used in haptics/feedback devices. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a detailed examination of the patent's validity.
patent null
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
· IPR2024-00567
NJOY challenges JUUL's patent (RE49,114) in a PTAB Petition based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references 'Cho' and 'Nielsen' disclose the core structural elements of e-cigarette cartridges. This challenge targets numerous claims related to wicking systems and atomization chambers.
patent instituted
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
· IPR2024-00566
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
patent null
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00565
Juniper Networks challenges the validity of Monarch Networking Solutions' '845 patent, asserting that claims related to IPv6/IPv4 transition and NAT are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references (Li, Li-2, Paunikar, Wu) to demonstrate the lack of nonobviousness in networking technology.
patent instituted
Dell Inc. et al. v.--
· IPR2024-00564
Dell Inc. et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR2024-00564, challenging SOFTEX's '649 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103). The Board found that the Becton factors strongly favored institution, despite some Fintiv factors weighing against denial.
patent null
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00563
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
patent instituted
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00562
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Entropic Communications' patent 8363681, targeting network synchronization and ranging methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art standards like IEEE802.3ah, Shvodian, Frei, and Ovadia. This institutional decision sets up a detailed examination of technical obviousness in wireless communications.
patent null
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00561
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR petition, arguing that claims 1 and 6 are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining Wainner/Bocci or Kamite/Bocci renders the claimed network technology conventional and predictable.
patent instituted
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00561
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR, arguing that claims 1 and 6 were obvious over combinations of Wainner, Bocci, and Kamite. The Board found the merits strong and ruled to institute the proceeding, noting prior art was not substantively analyzed by the Examiner.
patent null
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00560
DISH Network L.L.C. challenged Entropic Communications LLC's patent (8631450) in a Petition, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board found institution warranted based on favorable application of the Fintiv and Advanced Bionics tests.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
· IPR2024-00559
Samsung Electronics filed an opening petition to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587, challenging its validity under Section 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that the patent's claims are obvious when combining various prior art references like Fiedler and Broussard.
patent instituted
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
· IPR2024-00558
Microchip Technology initiated an IPR challenging the validity of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9460037, arguing that the claimed USB hub features are obvious. The petition focuses on combining prior art (Chang and Chang II) to demonstrate predictable design choices in computer networking hardware.
