US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 279 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent null
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00376
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a petition challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (US 10062107) before the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable over prior art based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
patent null
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00375
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging patent 10776863 held by Intercurrency Software LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on the combination of electronic trading features and currency conversion methods in financial technology.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00374
Samsung Electronics challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 regarding video coding and error concealment techniques via an IPR Petition. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Mualla, Shirani, and Saito.
patent null
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00372
Samsung filed a Petition challenging claims of the '995 Patent, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art including Phek, Segall, Martins, and He. The petitioner asserts that combining these video coding techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a POSITA.
patent null
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00369
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
patent instituted
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00368
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent 8783564, asserting that its core claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Horie and Kobayashi. The Board ruled against discretionary denial, moving the case into active litigation status.
patent null
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
· IPR2024-00366
TCL Industries challenged ATI Technologies' patent 8760454 in an IPR, arguing the unified shader claims are obvious. The petitioner bases its case on combining multiple prior art patents related to graphics processing and load balancing.
patent instituted
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00367
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310, arguing that claims 1-4 are anticipated (102) or obvious (103). The PTAB institution of review allows the challenger to proceed with its core arguments regarding payment authorization novelty.
patent null
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
· IPR2024-00363
Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.
patent instituted
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations
· IPR2024-00364
Panasonic Automotive Systems challenged UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent (8265096) in an IPR, arguing that prior art from IEEE 802.11 standards anticipates or renders the claims obvious. The Board found strong arguments favoring institution based on favorable Fintiv factors.
patent instituted
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
· IPR2024-00347
Petitioners (Delta Power Equipment, Lowe's, Home Depot) successfully requested institution of their Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 7,475,622. The challenge asserts that the claimed safety features for table saws are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gass and AAPA.
patent null
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00356
Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00342
Samsung Electronics challenged Headwater Research's patent (8406733) in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The challenger asserts that combining teachings from Houghton and Ogawa, or Houghton-Ogawa with Hwang, renders the claimed device provisioning and secure communication methods predictable.
patent instituted
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00344
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (11146632) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are unpatentable over prior art. The petition asserts that the patented technology is anticipated or obvious by the Agarwala reference and related knowledge of a POSITA.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00341
Samsung challenges Headwater Research's '733 Patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art standards (TS-23.140 and Ogawa). The petition asserts that combining existing communication protocols with symmetric encryption was predictable for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent instituted
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-00340
Shenzhen Pincan Technology filed an IPR challenging The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets all 24 claims using extensive prior art combinations involving references like Kane, Beckley, and Minn.
patent null
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00333
Apple challenges Carbyne Biometrics' patent 11475105 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art references like Kesanupalli and Cheng render multiple claims unpatentable.
patent instituted
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00331
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Carbyne Biometrics' patent claims, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petition asserts that the biometric fraud detection technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references.
patent instituted
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00330
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Carbyne Biometrics' patent (10713656) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition asserts that combining existing prior art references, such as Stone and FFIEC Guidance, renders the claimed biometric fraud detection methods obvious.
patent instituted
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00329
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging Carbyne Biometrics' patent (9,972,010), arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board has instituted the case, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
patent null
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00327
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references Demircin and Kimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Samsung also addresses discretionary denial provisions of the AIA.
patent null
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
· IPR2024-00320
ViVitro Labs Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC's patent (9237935). The petitioner asserts that the claimed heart valve testing system is anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Xi and Goldstein.
patent null
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00314
Ericsson and other petitioners filed an opening petition challenging 7177369's validity on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The challenges focus heavily on the combination of prior art references (Wong, Minn, Lehne) to invalidate claims related to OFDM channel estimation and smart antenna technology.
