US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 301 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · May 4, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00630
Tesla Inc.'s IPR against iQar Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, allowing claims related to vehicle power management logic to proceed to trial. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
patent final · May 4, 2024
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
· IPR2024-00752
The PTAB found that claims 1-7, 12-17, and 19-23 were unpatentable over prior art (Coffman/Kennewick/Lee) based on obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that 'synchronize' only requires updating context information without duplicating entry order.
patent Unpatentable · May 4, 2024
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
· IPR2024-00753
The PTAB found Claim 12 unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Kennewick and Ross. The Board concluded that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine these prior art references with reasonable expectation of success, particularly regarding context management in speech recognition.
patent Final Written Decision · May 4, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
· IPR2024-00731
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims of Patent 8,270,578 B2 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found that prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong) taught the subject matter through obvious combinations.
patent final · May 4, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
· IPR2024-00630
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The decision hinged on the Petitioner successfully demonstrating that prior art (Koebler) disclosed all elements of the claimed invention, while also clarifying claim terms regarding sensor data analysis.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
patent · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential. The motion invokes statutory confidentiality provisions and cites prior Board precedent.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,224,563 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing settlement and lack of merit decision.
patent · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence in response to Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s earlier decision was proper and the request should be denied.
patent denied · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
The PTAB denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of the final written decisions in IPR2024-00539 and four related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent · May 3, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00310
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
patent · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.
patent instituted · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as Confidential Business Information in the IPR.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light and Joovv have jointly moved to terminate their IPR dispute over patent 11,253,719.
patent null · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
patent instituted · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
patent null · May 3, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00539
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
patent null · May 3, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00310
AT&T and other carriers challenged Daingean Technologies' patent (US 10,932,207) in an IPR petition. The challengers argue that the claims related to random access procedures and power control are anticipated or obvious by prior art references Lee1 and Lee2.
patent denied · May 3, 2024
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
· IPR2024-00621
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
patent instituted · May 3, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00599
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
