US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 277 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00468
Monolithic Power Systems challenges Greenthread's semiconductor patent (8421195) before the PTAB, asserting that the claimed CMOS device improvements are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references, including Onoda and Kawagoe, to demonstrate a lack of inventive step in creating electric drift fields via graded dopant concentration.
patent null
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00467
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges Eye Therapies' patent (11833245) in an IPR, arguing all claims are obvious over prior art including Gil and Norden. The petition asserts that the combination of known elements for treating eye redness is motivated by POSA knowledge, favoring institution under Hatch-Waxman principles.
patent null
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
· IPR2024-00463
Ilooda Co. challenges Serendia's patent (10869812) in an IPR based on anticipation and obviousness, focusing on microneedling technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Mehta render multiple claims unpatentable through various combinations of elements.
patent instituted
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2024-00462
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.
patent null
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2024-00460
lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
patent null
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-00459
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
patent null
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00458
Microsoft et al. filed a Petition challenging the validity of LiTL LLC's patent 10564818, asserting that all eight challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition centers on GUI functionality in portable computing modes, arguing combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
patent null
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00457
Microsoft Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that all twenty claims are unpatentable by combining various prior art references, including Pröll and Preppernau.
patent null
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00456
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '8612888 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petition argues that the claimed digital media management methods are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Martinez. This challenges core aspects of the patent's validity in computing devices technology.
patent null
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00455
Microsoft et al. filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '315 patent on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed features are merely combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Chandhri. This challenges core aspects of computer interface design in portable devices.
patent null
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
· IPR2024-00454
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed GUI features are merely predictable combinations of prior art from Reavey, Chandhri, and Preppernau.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00446
Comcast Cable Communications filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic's '775 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art references. The petition details multiple combinations of references (e.g., Rabenko/Gaspar) to establish non-obviousness across numerous claim sets in the cable modem technology space.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00452
Comcast initiated an IPR against Entropic's '759 patent, challenging all 23 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The challenger argues that combinations of prior art references—including Gurantz and Grube—render the methods for bit-loading modulation unpatentable.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00445
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00444
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
patent null
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00443
TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00442
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR, arguing that prior art renders the core signal monitoring and reporting claims obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of references like Kamieniecki and Konstantinos to demonstrate that the claimed technology is a predictable evolution of existing cable television systems.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00441
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '008 patent claims, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art references like Renken and Cholas. The PTAB institution decision recognized the compelling unpatentability challenges presented by Comcast regarding signal monitoring technology.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00440
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic Communications' patent (US 11399206) in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner argues that the claimed wideband receiver methods are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations.
patent instituted
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00439
Comcast Cable Communications challenged the patentability of a wideband receiver system used in cable TV reception. The petitioner argues that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Cholas, Petrovic, Lee, and Takahiko. This petition seeks to invalidate the patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00438
Comcast Cable Communications (Petitioner) challenges the validity of Entropic's patent, asserting that the claimed method for receiving digitized television signals is anticipated and obvious. The petition relies heavily on prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey to demonstrate multiple grounds of invalidity under 102 and 103.
patent instituted
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00437
Comcast Cable Communications successfully requested the institution of an IPR against Entropic Communications' '866 Patent, challenging all 82 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner asserts that numerous elements are disclosed by prior art references like Pugel, Crols, Chandrakasan, and Jensen ’170.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00436
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11,381,866) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combining Cholas and Petrovic with references like Rabaey, Maalej, Lee, and Takahiko to demonstrate non-patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00435
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
