US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 323 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Mar 29, 2024
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00688
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 29, 2024
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
· IPR2024-00745
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that several original claims were unpatentable over Buibas in view of Sinyavskiy. However, the Board subsequently found the petitioner's substitute claims obvious over combinations of Grotmol and Zhu prior art, leading to further rejection.
patent final · Mar 29, 2024
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-00736
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness (103), specifically concluding that prior art references taught every element of Independent Claim 1. The Board also adopted broad claim constructions, rejecting narrow interpretations proposed by the Patent Owner regarding terms like 'Exhibitor' and 'Distribution'.
patent final · Mar 29, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
· IPR2024-00728
The PTAB found multiple claims of the '430 patent unpatentable over prior art, primarily Taniguchi. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction that key claim terms were not limiting, supporting obviousness findings across several grounds.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 29, 2024
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-00710
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
patent · Mar 28, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
· IPR2024-00729
Nearmap filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Pictometry’s aerial imaging patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied rules on claim‑chart format, expert declaration length, and claim construction. Nearmap seeks remand to a new panel to evaluate its obviousness and anticipation arguments.
patent denied · Mar 28, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
· IPR2024-00729
The PTAB denied Nearmap's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00729, leaving the IPR uninstated.
patent denied · Mar 28, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00678
Cisco and Fortinet requested a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against InfoExpress's patent 8,117,645. The Director denied the request, leaving the institution decision denied.
patent · Mar 28, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00678
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted the Krantz reference, overlooking device‑level audit data. The petition seeks vacatur of the decision and institution of the review.
patent null · Mar 28, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
· IPR2024-00729
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
patent null · Mar 28, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00678
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's patent (8117645) in the PTAB, arguing that claims related to Network Access Control are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate that combining known security and NAC techniques would have been routine for a POSITA.
patent denied · Mar 28, 2024
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
· IPR2024-00729
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
patent denied · Mar 28, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
· IPR2024-00678
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.
patent · Mar 27, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00733
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent · Mar 27, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00730
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 27, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00733
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion.
patent · Mar 27, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00733
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
patent · Mar 27, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00644
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and co‑petitioners' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,134,400, arguing the cited reference is not prior art and fails to teach the claimed SRB configurations, urging the Board to deny institution.
patent · Mar 27, 2024
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
· PGR2024-00022
Court decision.
patent · Mar 27, 2024
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
· PGR2024-00022
Voltage, LLC has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Shoals Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,689,153 covering solar lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under § 112. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent null · Mar 27, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00733
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
patent null · Mar 27, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00730
Multiple major carriers (AT&T, Ericsson, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent covering base station apparatus for transport block segmentation. The challengers argue the claims are anticipated and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 using prior art references Lee and Zheng.
patent null · Mar 27, 2024
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00644
AT&T and its partners filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' '400 Patent, asserting that claims 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated or obvious by the prior art reference R2-1702708. The challenge focuses on dual-connectivity/5G standards, arguing that an Ericsson technical contribution discloses all elements of the challenged claims. This is a critical early stage attack in ongoing litigation against Daingean Technologies.
patent denied · Mar 27, 2024
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
· PGR2024-00022
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.
