US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 274 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00557
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
patent instituted
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00556
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing that combinations of prior art references render the technology obvious. The petitioner focused on combining Astala/Shahoian for gesture recognition and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov for pressure determination techniques.
patent null
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00555
DISH Network L.L.C. initiated an IPR challenging patent 8320566 owned by Entropic Communications LLC, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Cleveland/Hayashino and Scheim/Tzannes, to demonstrate non-patentability in the field of OFDMA/Scrambling.
patent instituted
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00553
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
patent instituted
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00552
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.
patent instituted
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00551
Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.
patent instituted
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00550
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argued that the claimed semiconductor device features were rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda. The Board subsequently instituted the petition for trial.
patent null
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
· IPR2024-00549
Petitioner 3Shape A/S et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent claims, asserting that all 20 claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely heavily on combining prior art references such as Zhang and Babayoff to demonstrate predictable improvements in dental imaging technology.
patent null
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
· IPR2024-00548
Petitioner asserts that the challenged dental imaging claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Sommer, Rubbert, Malfliet, and Estépar. The petition details how specific elements related to bite registration methods merely aggregate known technologies from these sources.
patent null
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2024-00546
DISH Network challenges the validity of patent 8621539, arguing that its claims are obvious by combining prior art from Hou, Konschak, and Dapper. The petitioner asserts that known techniques in broadband cable networking render the claimed methods predictable improvements.
patent null
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
· IPR2024-00544
Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging BX LED LLC's patent (7973465) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cites multiple prior art references, including Shoji, Yatsuda, Hussell, Blonder, Thompson, and Nii, to invalidate claims 1-12 related to LED packaging/thermal management.
patent null
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
Tesla filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent (8972161), challenging the claims based on obviousness over prior art references. Tesla argues that the claimed energy-optimum routing and automatic cruise control features are conventional modifications of existing technology, making them unpatentable.
patent null
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00543
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.
patent null
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
· IPR2024-00542
Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the validity of BX LED LLC's patent (8567988) based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art, specifically Cao753 and Baek/Cao630, discloses all or elements of the claimed LED packaging technology.
patent instituted
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00541
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (7,925,426) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims related to route optimization and power management are obvious. The PTAB found merits compelling and decided to institute the case based on favorable Fintiv factors.
patent null
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00540
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8,347,350), arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate predictable network access control features.
patent null
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
patent null
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00538
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,173,054 owned by InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (Sections 102/103). The petitioner argues that the patent lacks written description support for its method using Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi transfer, asserting prior art reference Forutanpour anticipates or renders the claims obvious.
patent null
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00537
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.
patent null
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
· IPR2024-00536
NJOY challenges JUUL's e-cigarette patent (US 11,606,981) on multiple grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Petition argues that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features of the vaping device readily apparent. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation and ITC investigations between the parties.
patent null
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00534
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
patent null
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00535
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
patent instituted
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00532
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
· IPR2024-00533
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
