US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 290 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00941
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
patent denied · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00940
The Director vacated the Final Written Decision and dismissed the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that the petition was time-barred after correcting its list of Real Parties in Interest.
patent instituted · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00940
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · May 21, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00796
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 21, 2024
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
· PGR2024-00034
Good Sportsman Marketing successfully convinced the PTAB that all 19 claims of patent 11736855 were unpatentable. The Board found the claims invalid under both obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and various indefiniteness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).
patent final · May 21, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00940
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,451,339. The settlement resolves all disputes and the agreement is kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement, jointly requesting termination of the IPR concerning patent 8,451,339. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00924
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00924
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00924
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle, planning to dismiss the district court case tied to Patent 7,612,805.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
patent instituted · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony Corporation filed an IPR challenging the validity of Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '339 patent related to automated correction of imaging distortions. The petitioner argues that multiple combinations of prior art references render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the petition demonstrated a strong showing on the merits, leading to institution.
patent instituted · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00924
Sony Corporation filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of the '805 patent held by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated image distortion correction is obvious when combining references like Watanabe, Takane, and Russ. This challenges the validity of key imaging technology patents in the digital image processing space.
patent null · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Sony Corporation challenges Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's patent claims regarding automated imaging distortion correction under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious, relying on multiple combinations of prior art references in digital signal processing circuits.
patent instituted · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony Corporation successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC regarding digital image processing claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art, moving the case to the merits phase.
patent instituted · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00924
Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · May 20, 2024
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
patent instituted · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00909
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of claim 10 of Micron’s challenged 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the Toyama reference.
patent instituted · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00909
Micron’s IPR against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
patent · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
Micron seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that left its 3D NAND flash patent claims unchallenged. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored reply evidence. A reversal could affect the enforceability of claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent 10,937,806.
