US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 285 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent null · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00929
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
patent · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00928
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's patent for a wearable computing device, arguing that the invention is unpatentable over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references such as Schröder and Yuen renders the claimed finger ring obvious, covering both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent null · May 31, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00913
Juniper Networks has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to multicast routing and stream management are obvious over existing prior art references. This challenge targets core network fabric technology.
patent null · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00907
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Maxell's U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed features related to multi-radio cellular phones and video processing are merely combinations of existing prior art.
patent denied · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00031
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00030
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
patent denied · May 31, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-00991
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00989
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition filed by Juniper Networks against Portsmouth Network Corporation, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board specifically accepted arguments that challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and others based on obviousness over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
patent denied · May 31, 2024
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00988
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition challenging claims in a semiconductor device patent, citing failure to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Board found that several grounds were voluminous and excessive, particularly those involving complex prior art combinations.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00987
IKEA Supply AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent for LED carrier leadframes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103).
patent denied · May 31, 2024
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
· IPR2024-00953
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Chiaro Technology's breast pump patent (11413380) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition in another proceeding.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00951
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
patent denied · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00930
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Oura Health because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
patent denied · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00929
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00928
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00913
Juniper Networks successfully navigated the PTAB's institution standards, leading to trial on numerous claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00907
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against patent 10,129,590, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that multiple combinations of prior art references—including N93 and various technical specifications—met the criteria for institution.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00030
Samsung Electronics challenged Oura Health's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, arguing obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB found the vast majority of the grounds unpersuasive, but ultimately cancelled two dependent claims (17 and 18) under § 112(d).
patent final · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00928
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
patent Final Written Decision · May 31, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00913
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that ten of the fifteen challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng). The Board found sufficient motivation to combine Blease and Weyman for distributed architecture features, while also finding that combining Blease/Weyman with Hu was plausible for bandwidth efficiency improvements.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 30, 2024
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00990
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
patent denied · May 30, 2024
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00990
Weatherford files an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Halliburton’s Director Review Request, asserting the Board’s findings on claims 14, 29‑31, and 33 are well‑founded and that the patent owner’s arguments misinterpret the claim language and prior art.
patent · May 30, 2024
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00990
Halliburton seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found several gravel‑packing screen claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misread claim language, offered no motivation for its combination, and abused its discretion.
patent · May 30, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00954
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
