US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 283 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB against Danco, Inc., leading to the institution of trial on all 14 claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the patent's features were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using various prior art references. This decision significantly advances Fluidmaster’s challenge in related district court litigation.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00634
Fluidmaster successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Danco's patent (9103105) regarding toilet fill valves. The Board granted institution on multiple grounds, setting the stage for a full trial to determine if the claims are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00633
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Danco's patent, challenging 20 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'integrally molded with,' defining it as being formed as a single structure.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00620
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Patent No. 9,330,593 B2 in the OLED circuitry space. The Board found sufficient showing for institution based on Petitioner's analysis of Tobita as prior art under §102(b).
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00613
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in its IPR against XR Communications LLC. The challenge focused on whether multi-beam directed signal systems were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references Agee and Butler.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00600
MediaTek successfully secured institution at the PTAB against MOSAID Technologies regarding integrated circuit patents related to power management. The Board accepted Petitioner's showing of reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable over prior art references, including Takahashi and Mizuno.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00598
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID's '306 Patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on 51 claims. The Board applied plain and ordinary meaning to key claim terms despite patent owner arguments, setting the stage for a full trial.
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00635
The PTAB panel majority found that the cited prior art references teach or suggest all limitations of claims 1-14, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically construed key terms like 'overflow tube' and 'Flow Limitations' to support Petitioner’s reading, though ultimately found the overflow tube limitation was limiting in scope.
patent final · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00633
The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 3, 2024
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00634
The PTAB found 16 claims unpatentable over prior art references, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board upheld its construction of 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
patent Final Written Decision · Jun 3, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00613
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
patent · Jun 2, 2024
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
· IPR2024-00347
Delta Power Equipment, Lowe’s and Home Depot seek rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their cutting‑machine blade‑guard patent, arguing the Board misread the Gass prior art and that claims 1,2,5,9 are obvious.
patent null · Jun 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
Tesla filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent (8972161), challenging the claims based on obviousness over prior art references. Tesla argues that the claimed energy-optimum routing and automatic cruise control features are conventional modifications of existing technology, making them unpatentable.
patent instituted · Jun 2, 2024
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 instituted · Jun 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.
patent denied · Jun 2, 2024
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
· IPR2024-00347
Petitioner's attempt to invalidate a cutting machine safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that key biasing elements in the prior art did not match the specific limitations of the claims.
patent final · Jun 2, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00545
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art combination with Neiss supported the modifications to the patented system, particularly regarding route handling and iterative energy calculation. Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 were found invalid.
patent · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec and Senko have settled their IPR over patent 11,307,369 and jointly request the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components, Inc. settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPR proceedings, including the one covering patent 11,307,369 B2. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,307,369. They jointly request the settlement be kept confidential and move to terminate the IPR.
patent instituted · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec Ltd. successfully secured institution of Inter Partes Review against Senko Advanced Components, Inc., challenging 18 claims related to optical fiber connectors.
patent instituted · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. successfully secured institution of IPR against Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s optical connector patent (11307369), challenging 22 claims based on obviousness and anticipation.
patent · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of Senko Advanced Components' patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation based on prior art references including Nguyen, Lin, Scherer, and Gniadek. The petitioner argues that combining these references yields predictable improvements to the optical connector technology.
