US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 282 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jun 3, 2024
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00620
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ MapReduce patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and prior‑art references, improperly narrowing the claims.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00620
BOE and affiliates filed a joint notice that a redacted version of the PTAB’s final written decision in Samsung Display’s OLED display patent case has been prepared. The redactions protect confidential material while allowing the decision to be filed.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks submits a corrected certification of word count and updated certificate of service for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ patent 8,190,610.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00633
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek and MOSAID have jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, including the one covering U.S. Patent 8,854,077, after reaching a settlement agreement and filing a dismissal in district court.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,051,306, leading the PTAB to terminate four related inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential information.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
The PTAB denied Databricks' request for Director Review of the earlier decision that refused to institute its IPR against R2 Solutions' data‑processing patent. The Director recused herself, and the Deputy Under Secretary upheld the denial.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
PTAB notified Fluidmaster and Danco that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-00635. The petitioner may submit a limited 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Jun 3, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks, Inc. challenges R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8,190,610) in a Petition proceeding, arguing that the claimed enhancements to MapReduce are obvious. The petitioner contends that combining existing distributed processing techniques from Pike and Chowdhuri renders the claims predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
Fluidmaster challenged Danco's patent covering toilet/bowl fill valve connections, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The PTAB institution decision found that the claimed quick connector features were predictable based on various prior art references.
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00634
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00633
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a patent covering water flow regulation in plumbing fixtures, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Schuster and rendered obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on 35 U.S.C. §102 (Anticipation) and §103 (Obviousness).
patent null · Jun 3, 2024
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00620
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00613
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge patent 10715235 in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art related to Butler matrix technology. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and granted institution.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
The PTAB denied institution of the PGR petition filed by Inari Agriculture against Pioneer Hi-Bred, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success. The Board specifically rejected obviousness claims because they relied on phenotypic comparisons while ignoring critical genotypic differences in maize breeding technology.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2024
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00659
Databricks, Inc. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8190610) regarding MapReduce data grouping. The PTAB denied institution because Petitioner relied on speculative hindsight rather than demonstrating a clear motivation from prior art references like Pike and Chowdhuri.
