US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 291 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs concerning patent 10,937,806. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
patent · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
patent null · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
Micron Technology has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding its 3D NAND memory patents. The petition challenges claims based on obviousness over prior art reference Toyama et al., asserting that specific modifications are predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
patent null · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00909
Micron Technology initiated an Inter Partes Review against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND Flash Memory claims. The petitioner argues that the claimed structural elements are obvious over prior art reference Toyama, establishing a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits for IPR institution.
patent instituted · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D NAND memory technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 10 based on Toyama's First Exemplary Structure, moving the case toward trial preparation.
patent instituted · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00909
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
patent final · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00909
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
patent final · May 19, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
patent · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
patent denied · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent denied · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
Texas Instruments successfully defended its 7,496,342 patent against ParkerVision’s Director Review request, which sought to overturn the PTAB’s institution and obviousness findings. The Board affirmed that claims 18‑21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and Macnally, and the review request was denied.
patent denied · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00934 concerning patent 7,496,342 owned by ParkerVision.
patent · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
patent · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00936
Texas Instruments Incorporated initiated an IPR challenging ParkerVision's frequency down-conversion receiver claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references, including Tayloe and Macnally, render the claimed apparatus obvious.
patent null · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00935
Texas Instruments filed a Petition challenging ParkerVision's patent claims related to RF signal processing and down-conversion. The core argument centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103), asserting that the claimed methods are merely combinations of known prior art techniques.
patent null · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's down-converter patent (7496342). The petition asserts that claims are obvious over prior art references, including DeMaw and Macnally. This challenge targets key technology in wireless communications.
patent instituted · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00936
Texas Instruments (Petitioner) successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review petition against ParkerVision's patent (9118528). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations including Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally.
patent instituted · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00935
Texas Instruments Incorporated successfully challenged ParkerVision's patent claims regarding RF signal processing via an IPR petition. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to the institution of the case for substantive analysis.
patent instituted · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
Texas Instruments (TI) successfully secured the institution of its IPR against ParkerVision, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that TI's evidence was sufficient at this stage to overcome arguments regarding inherency and simulation data reliability.
patent Final Written Decision · May 18, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
The PTAB found that dependent claims 19-21 were unpatentable over prior art references DeMaw and Macnally. The decision hinged on the petitioner's successful demonstration via computer simulation that routine circuit optimizations fell within the scope of the cited prior art.
patent terminated or settled · May 17, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038. They jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
patent · May 17, 2024
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
· IPR2024-00937
Duration Media petitions the PTAB Director to review a Board decision that upheld claims of a web‑ad tracking patent. The petitioner asserts the Board ignored prior art and admissions that render the claims obvious. It seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
patent · May 17, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00919
Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka have responded to DISH’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of patent 8,868,772 are unpatentable should stand. They contend DISH’s arguments are outside the scope of review and that the prior art clearly discloses continuous playback.
patent · May 17, 2024
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00919
DISH Technologies requests a Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The petition alleges procedural and substantive errors, including improper theory shifting and misinterpretation of prior art.
