US PTAB IP Litigation

patent denied · Apr 15, 2024

InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board already considered all issues and that the petitioners forfeited new arguments. The Board’s prior finding that none of the references are prior art stands.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

The PTAB denied the Director’s review of final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including Cisco’s challenge to InfoExpress’s patent 8,677,450 on network traffic management.

Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.

· IPR2024-00803

Aptiv challenges Microchip's '665 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to ESD protection circuits. The challenger argues that the claimed circuit, which uses pad capacitance for energy storage, is taught or rendered obvious by prior art references like Verhaege and Miller. This initial petition sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over semiconductor device design practices.

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00786

Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00742

The Integration Group of Americas challenges SitePro's patent (11,294,403) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, arguing that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez. The PTAB has instituted the case, allowing the merits of the anticipation and obviousness arguments to proceed.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00741

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. filed an opening petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s Patent No. 10,488,871 in the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn and Gutierrez.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00740

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. challenged SitePro's patent (11726504) via a Petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Cardamone or Kahn under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petitioner also argues for obviousness based on combining prior art with SCADA under § 103.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00739

The Integration Group challenges SitePro's patent (9898014) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are either anticipated by Kahn or rendered obvious when combining Kahn with Gutierrez.

The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00738

The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s patent (9342078) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Almadi, Gutierrez, and SCADA. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are fully disclosed by these references in the field of Industrial Automation.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00737

The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.

The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00724

The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

patent denied · Apr 15, 2024

Cisco Systems challenges InfoExpress's patent (8677450) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining Krantz and Herrmann prior art references provides a predictable solution for enhanced network security and access control policy enforcement.

Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.

· IPR2024-00803

The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00786

Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

patent final · Apr 15, 2024

CISCO and FORTINET successfully petitioned to challenge InfoExpress's network security patents, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combining Krantz and Herrmann would render the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00786

The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 12, 2024

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00232

The PTAB found all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 12, 2024

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00232

The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent were unpatentable, adopting the petitioner’s claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 12, 2024

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 12, 2024

The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 12, 2024

The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 12, 2024

The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.