US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 289 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · May 22, 2024
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
· PGR2024-00033
Camel Manufacturing seeks cancellation of DLX Enterprises' ‘496 patent covering rapid‑deployment hub shelters, alleging on‑sale and public‑use bars based on pre‑filing sales and a 2017 exhibition. The petition provides sales invoices, design drawings, and exhibition photos as prior art.
patent null · May 22, 2024
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00932
Abbott Laboratories filed a Petition challenging Newtonoid Technologies' patent claims based on obviousness. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies, such as dynamic barcodes and environmental monitoring, renders the claims unpatentable over multiple prior art references. This challenge targets 18 specific claims related to stimuli-responsive labels.
patent denied · May 22, 2024
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
· IPR2024-00947
Siemens Mobility's IPR challenge against Metrom Rail's rail vehicle control patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the arguments presented were substantially similar to those previously raised during prosecution, leading to a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
patent denied · May 22, 2024
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
· IPR2024-00947
The PTAB denied a request to reverse the denial of institution for IPR2024-00947, finding that Kane was not 'previously presented art' and that it was substantially similar to Knott.
patent instituted · May 22, 2024
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-00932
Abbott Laboratories challenged Newtonoid Technologies' '818 patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references like Prusik and Vaillant. The PTAB issued an institution decision finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 20 challenged claims.
patent terminated or settled · May 21, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00032
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
patent terminated or settled · May 21, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00032
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 covering fiber‑optic connectors. They jointly filed a motion to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · May 21, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00032
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · May 21, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled · May 21, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
patent terminated or settled · May 21, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00940
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s ’680 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent were obvious over Ogdon and Allen, while 8 claims remained patentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 21, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00796
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
patent · May 21, 2024
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00032
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
patent · May 21, 2024
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
· PGR2024-00034
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of the ’855 patent, arguing obviousness over Unger and Smith, indefiniteness of several claims, and lack of enablement and written description for claim 10.
patent · May 21, 2024
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
· PGR2024-00034
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.
patent null · May 21, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson challenges Omachron's vacuum cleaner patents in PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petition asserts that existing technology renders every claim predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent · May 21, 2024
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
· IPR2024-00948
Ascend Elements challenges Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent (11050097) by asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references, such as Hanisch with Meador and Shin, renders the claimed features predictable for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent null · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00941
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the claims covering adaptive bitrate streaming are obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combinations of references like Ogdon and Allen, supplemented by Klements and Gamble, teach every limitation of the challenged claims.
patent null · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00940
Petitioner Aylo Freesites Ltd challenges 20 claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '234 Patent based on obviousness (103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, particularly Leaning, Klements, and Gamble, to show that the adaptive bitrate content streaming technology was already known.
patent instituted · May 21, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00796
MediaTek Inc. petitioned to invalidate ParkerVision's '686 Patent claims based on obviousness (§103). The petition asserts that the claimed multi-platform communication modules are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Nevo and Avitabile, and Young/Estabrook.
patent instituted · May 21, 2024
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
· PGR2024-00034
Good Sportsman Marketing challenged Hangzhou ZH Tech's patent (11736855) in PGR, alleging obviousness and indefiniteness across 19 claims. The Board instituted the petition, finding a likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable based on prior art combinations.
patent instituted · May 21, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson Technology Limited successfully instituted an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent (10080472) covering vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
patent instituted · May 21, 2024
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
· IPR2024-00948
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
