US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 312 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
· IPR2024-01490
Slack and Salesforce successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Wrinkl's group messaging patent (11973731). The Board accepted arguments that the claims are unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over prior art, including Kakuta.
patent instituted
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
· IPR2024-01489
Slack and Salesforce successfully secured institution in an IPR against Wrinkl, Inc., challenging 30 claims based on anticipation by the 'Cohen' prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under 35 U.S.C. § 102, moving the case toward trial.
patent instituted
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
· IPR2024-01487
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against Essity Hygiene and Health AB's absorbent article patent (9308138). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art, including Nakazawa.
patent instituted
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2024-01488
MediaTek successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent 10740281. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims related to multi-core processor power management are unpatentable over combinations of Sutardja and Mathieson.
patent denied
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01486
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
patent denied
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01485
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8,886,954, finding that the petition did not warrant institution as a second challenge.
patent denied
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2024-01483
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
patent denied
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-01481
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2024-01477
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
patent denied
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
· IPR2024-01476
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Haptic, Inc.'s patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel civil litigation and concerns over system efficiency.
patent denied
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
· IPR2024-01475
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
patent instituted
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
· IPR2024-01473
PreOmics GmbH et al. successfully petitioned for institution in the IPR against The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., challenging claims related to sensor arrays for protein corona analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
patent denied
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
· IPR2024-01469
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
patent instituted
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
· IPR2024-01468
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
patent instituted
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01467
Axion Biosystems successfully navigated the Institution Decision phase in its IPR against Agilent Technologies, leading to the trial of key claims. The Board declined to deny institution, allowing the dispute over cell monitoring and impedance analysis technology to proceed to litigation.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01465
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Google and Samsung's claims against Cerence. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, which weighed heavily in favor of preventing duplicative proceedings.
patent instituted
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01463
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
patent denied
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01463
The Director denied institution of Inter Partes Review in a dispute between Solus Advanced Materials and SK Nexilis, citing the Fintiv holistic assessment.
patent denied
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01462
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge brought by Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s patent, finding insufficient evidence to support obviousness claims. The Board rejected the petitioner's reliance on hindsight bias when attempting to combine prior art references.
patent denied
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01462
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
patent denied
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01461
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' IPR challenges against SK nexilis regarding claims covering electrolytic copper foils for secondary batteries. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly rejecting conclusory expert testimony used to bridge prior art gaps.
