US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 275 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jun 18, 2024
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
· IPR2024-00892
BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.
patent instituted · Jun 18, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
patent instituted · Jun 18, 2024
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
· IPR2024-00892
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
patent null · Jun 17, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00922
Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00922
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
patent · Jun 15, 2024
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
· PGR2024-00036
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
patent denied · Jun 15, 2024
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
· PGR2024-00036
Bestway challenged Intex's patent, but the PTAB denied institution because Intex had statutorily disclaimed all claims. The Board also declined to enter an adverse judgment against Intex.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01026
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01026
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01023
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01024
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01023
Roku and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01023
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, jointly moving to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent denied · Jun 14, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01026
Court decision.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01024
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01024
Roku and VideoLabs settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 B2. The PTAB terminated the three related IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after the parties filed a joint motion and settlement agreement.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01026
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging VideoLabs' patent 8667304 related to Conditional Access/DRM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are anticipated by prior art reference Russ under Section 102, and are obvious in view of Robert under Section 103.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01025
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of VideoLabs' patent related to Conditional Access and DRM technology. The petitioner argues that the core concept of bridging security systems is anticipated or rendered obvious by multiple prior art references, including Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
patent · Jun 14, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2024-01024
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
