US PTAB IP Litigation

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024

Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.

Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,

· IPR2024-00852

Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00854

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to end the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 26, 2024

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.

Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,

· IPR2024-00852

Court decision.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00854

Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.

Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,

· IPR2024-00852

Google LLC has filed an opening petition challenging nine claims of a wearable device patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge asserts that key features, including GPS and biometric authentication, were already known in prior art by 2015.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00846

Microsoft Corporation filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 held by Proxense, LLC. The core argument is that the patent's claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Burger and Robinson.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

Samsung filed an IPR petition against Maxell's patent covering touchscreen/fingerprint authentication technology, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references (Rogers, Rosenberg, Miyazawa, Rekimoto) render the challenged claims unpatentable.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00793

Micron Technology filed a Petition to institute IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND Flash Memory claims, arguing the patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition targets multiple claims based on combinations of prior art references (Seo, Choi, Nam, Izumi).

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00776

Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging 16 claims of Proxense, LLC's patent related to biometric authentication for financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Burger and Robinson. This marks a key procedural step in the ongoing dispute between the parties.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00854

Dyson Technology Limited successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding patent 10478030, which covers surface cleaning apparatus. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims (1-13) based on prior art references including Peter, Neroni, and Butler.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00846

Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB that its biometric authentication claims were not obvious over prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00793

The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).

patent Final Written Decision · Apr 26, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00793

The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.

Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2024-00846

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.

patent final · Apr 26, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.