US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 281 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent final · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01381
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,014,090 B2 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the specific structural limitations claimed by the patent.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 9, 2024
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01380
The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Jun 8, 2024
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-01264
A challenger has filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808, owned by The Ridge Wallet LLC. The petitioner asserts that the patent's compact wallet structure and auxiliary clip mechanism are obvious combinations of existing prior art references. This challenge targets all 24 claims based on Section 103 (obviousness).
patent denied · Jun 8, 2024
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
· IPR2024-01264
Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
patent · Jun 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00966
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB denial of institution for its IPR against Sfara’s vehicle‑identification patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by demanding a means‑plus‑function construction that the claims lack. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00966
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00977
The PTAB denied BOE Technology Group’s request for rehearing of its denied institution of an IPR on claims 7‑13 and 15‑20 of U.S. Patent 9,557,606. The Board held that the petitioner failed to define “wiring line” and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00999
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. filed a Petition asserting that MHL Custom, Inc.'s personal hydrofoil watercraft patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that various prior art references combine to render the claimed design obvious.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00998
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9359044) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as passive static stability and specific airfoil designs, are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00977
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 related to LCD manufacturing methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). BOE argues that combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable.
patent null · Jun 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00966
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Sfara, Inc.'s patent on vehicle identification technology. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references Fong and Abramson. Petitioner contends that combining sensor signature detection with comparison methods was known in the field.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00999
The PTAB denied an Inter Partes Review petition against MHL Custom's patent (9586659) filed by Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence. The denial was based on the petition being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as Petitioner had already lost related litigation using the same prior art.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00998
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Patent 9,359,044 B2, finding the petition time-barred. The denial followed the rejection of a motion to join because the petitioner had already challenged the patent's validity in district court.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00977
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Fujikawa, Kang, and Ikeguchi.
patent denied · Jun 6, 2024
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
· IPR2024-00966
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to properly construe means-plus-function claim terms under Rule 104(b)(3).
patent · Jun 5, 2024
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
· PGR2024-00028
Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
patent null · Jun 5, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-00895
Juniper Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and Software Defined Networking (SDN) methods are obvious. The Petitioner asserts that combining prior art teachings from Lefebvre, Chua, and Rash renders the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Jun 5, 2024
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
· PGR2024-00028
The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
patent denied · Jun 5, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-00895
Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 5, 2024
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
· PGR2024-00028
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all ten challenged claims related to vascular occlusion catheters are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on various combinations of prior art references, primarily under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness).
patent null · Jun 4, 2024
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
· IPR2024-00725
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
patent denied · Jun 4, 2024
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
· IPR2024-00725
Amazon's attempt to invalidate Nokia's video compression patent (8204134) failed at the PTAB. The Board denied institution, finding that Amazon could not prove obviousness over prior art like Yagasaki.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for review of institution decisions in four PGR cases, including the one covering patent 11,666,020, leaving the institution rulings intact.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer’s corn‑seed patent, arguing that the PTAB’s denial of institution improperly rewards secrecy of parent lines. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision and prevent a precedent that could undermine disclosure in plant‑breeding patents.
