US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 274 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent null · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00960
Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00959
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging patent 7428082, arguing that several claims are unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga to demonstrate obviousness. The PTAB found factors favoring institution, allowing the review process to proceed.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00958
Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01052
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2024
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01045
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01041
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01042
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. successfully challenged Headwater Research LLC's patent (8924543) on grounds of obviousness, leading to the institution of the IPR proceeding. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references Poh and Maes rendered the claimed network service provisioning system obvious.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00984
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00959
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00960
Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00958
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01052
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 20, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00984
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
patent final · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00960
The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.
patent final · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00959
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
patent final · Jun 20, 2024
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00958
The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung and Staton Techiya settled their IPR over patent 11,750,965 and jointly moved to have the settlement kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
patent · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent null · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
patent null · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01033
Samsung Electronics challenges Staton Techiya's patent claims regarding smart earphones, asserting that the core features are obvious combinations of existing prior art. The petition targets 30 claims related to ambient sound enhancement and acoustic noise cancellation.
