US PTAB IP Litigation

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

patent denied · May 29, 2024

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,640,733 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Court decision.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG challenged Everlight Electronics' Patent No. 9,640,733 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claimed LED carrier structure is unpatentable. The petitioner raised multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) against several prior art references. This challenge targets core structural elements of the light-emitting diode packaging.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.

Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.

· IPR2024-00711

Salvacion USA challenges the '802 Patent's claims (1, 2, 3, 8) in a Petition, asserting they are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. The Petitioner argues that various references, including Chen and Baker, disclose all elements of the claimed nasal application formulations.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.

IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent 8982109, challenging claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.

patent Final Written Decision · May 29, 2024

Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.

· IPR2024-00711

Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

patent Final Written Decision · May 29, 2024

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.

Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.