US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 319 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
patent denied · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 4, 2024
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
· IPR2024-00764
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
patent denied · Apr 4, 2024
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00744
The PTAB denied institution of Autel's IPR against Orange Electronic's TPMS patent, finding the petition presented no new prior art or arguments beyond those already considered in a prior reexamination.
patent null · Apr 4, 2024
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
· IPR2024-00764
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
patent null · Apr 4, 2024
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00744
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
patent denied · Apr 4, 2024
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00744
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00640
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00639
Under Armour filed an IPR challenging the validity of Athalonz's athletic shoe patent (11375768). The petition asserts that various claimed features, including a gradient compression forefoot platform and uniform heel height, are obvious based on combinations of prior art.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00638
Under Armour challenges Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (11064760) in an IPR petition, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over multiple prior art references. The petitioner argues the claimed features were conventional knowledge in the field of athletic positioning footwear.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00636
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's '786 patent for athletic/golf footwear sole design via an IPR petition. The petitioner argued that all eight claimed features were obvious based on prior art references including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The Board subsequently instituted the proceeding.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00637
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (US 11013291) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The PTAB has instituted the proceeding, finding merit in the challenger's arguments against discretionary denial.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00625
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00624
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00623
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00622
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
patent null · Apr 3, 2024
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00612
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
· IPR2024-00528
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's targeted advertising patent (8249932) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petition cites combinations of existing technology in ad serving and network redirection to invalidate the patent.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00639
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00640
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Under Armour against Athalonz regarding athletic footwear claims. The Board adopted key claim constructions and found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over the prior art reference 'Won' for several independent claims.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00638
Under Armour successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Athalonz, LLC's shoe patent (11,064,760 B2). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00636
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's shoe patent (10,674,786), challenging claims 1-8 based on obviousness over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
· IPR2024-00637
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's patent (11,013,291) for athletic footwear. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over prior art reference Kim.
patent instituted · Apr 3, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00625
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates key claims, warranting further trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
