US PTAB IP Litigation

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01324

Quotient Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intelligent Clearing Network’s 9,098,855 coupon‑processing patent, asserting that all 57 claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply, seeking institution of the review.

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01392

NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s ’331 patent covering network‑security risk rating. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Tippett, McNab, and McGovern—to argue obviousness under §103 for claims 1‑29.

NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2024-01393

NormShield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's network‑security rating patent (U.S. 9,973,524). The petition relies on §103 obviousness over McNab, McGovern, and Cole references and argues that FINTIV and §325(d) factors oppose denial.

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01381

CMS Cepcor has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s U.S. Patent 11,014,090 covering gyratory crusher shafts, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that institution should be granted despite parallel litigation.

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01380

CMS Cepcor petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s 9,827,568 patent covering a gyratory crusher shaft sleeve, arguing that all ten claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition stresses that the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Kangvape has petitioned an IPR against RAI Strategic's 202‑patent covering an electronic smoking article, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims.

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01323

Quotient Technology seeks to invalidate 35 claims of a digital‑coupon patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier coupon‑processing publications. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01325

Quotient Technology has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Patent 10,846,729, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims as obvious over prior‑art coupon systems. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01407

The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01407

The PTAB denied the request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patent 9179359 between Samsung and Headwater Research.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC

· IPR2024-01407

Samsung challenged Headwater's patent (9179359) in an IPR proceeding focused on network traffic control claims. The PTAB granted institution, allowing Samsung to proceed with its § 103 obviousness challenge against Claim 26 using Shell and Cole prior art.

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a vaporizing smoking article patent, citing the existence and advanced stage of a parallel ITC investigation.

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

The Director granted review of an institution decision in a vaping patent case, vacating the original ruling and sending it back to the Board. The parties must now address discretionary denial under Fintiv factors considering a parallel ITC proceeding.

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.

Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. successfully challenged RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.'s patent on electrically heated smoking articles. The PTAB instituted the IPR after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Morgan and Takeuchi.

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01380

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for U.S. Patent 9,827,568, challenging claims related to gyratory crushers. CMS Cepcor successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the patent is obvious over prior art references.

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01381

CMS Cepcor successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Sandvik's gyratory crusher patent (11,014,090 B2), setting the stage for a complex obviousness trial involving three prior art references.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01377

POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, arguing that multiple prior art combinations render the claims unpatentable under 102 and 103. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, despite factors favoring discretionary denial, leading to the institution of the review on all 25 challenged claims.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01377

The Director denied review of institution decisions in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPRs and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel challenges.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01376

The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that POSCO Co., Ltd. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim against ArcelorMittal's patent. The Board found grounds for anticipation and obviousness across all 30 claims based on prior art including Engels, Takagi, and GMW14400.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL

· IPR2024-01376

The Director denied review requests in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPR proceedings and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel petitions.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC

· IPR2024-01371

The PTAB denied Cisco Systems' IPR petition against Scale Video Coding LLC, finding the asserted claims were not reasonably likely to be unpatentable over prior art references. The decision focused on technical limitations regarding bandwidth identification in video routers.

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01324

Quotient Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of patent 9098855 against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on anticipation and obviousness grounds, primarily citing prior art from Deaton. This decision allows Quotient to proceed with challenging key claims related to coupon redemption networks.

Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01325

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Quotient Technology against Intelligent Clearing Network regarding patent 10846729. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Aggarwal and Deaton.