US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 326 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent denied
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01008
The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent denied
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2024-01009
Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'
patent instituted
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01005
LG Energy Solution successfully instituted its IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's patent (9636649) covering polymer composites. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across all 23 claims based on multiple prior art combinations.
patent instituted
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01006
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
patent denied
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
· IPR2024-01000
The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.
patent denied
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00999
The PTAB denied an Inter Partes Review petition against MHL Custom's patent (9586659) filed by Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence. The denial was based on the petition being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as Petitioner had already lost related litigation using the same prior art.
patent denied
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
patent denied
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00998
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Patent 9,359,044 B2, finding the petition time-barred. The denial followed the rejection of a motion to join because the petitioner had already challenged the patent's validity in district court.
patent instituted
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00995
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
patent instituted
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00996
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (8626461). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds regarding inductive power coupling technology.
patent instituted
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
patent denied
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
· IPR2024-00993
SharkNinja's IPR challenge against Dyson regarding hair styling attachments was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim based on obviousness over prior art references.
patent denied
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00992
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent denied
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
· IPR2024-00991
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
patent instituted
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00989
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition filed by Juniper Networks against Portsmouth Network Corporation, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board specifically accepted arguments that challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and others based on obviousness over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
patent instituted
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00990
Weatherford U.S., L.P. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halliburton Energy Services' patent (11333007) regarding wellbore gravel packing technology. The Board granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103).
patent denied
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00988
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition challenging claims in a semiconductor device patent, citing failure to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Board found that several grounds were voluminous and excessive, particularly those involving complex prior art combinations.
patent instituted
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00987
IKEA Supply AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent for LED carrier leadframes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103).
patent instituted
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
patent instituted
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 instituted
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00984
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
patent instituted
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00983
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The grounds for institution were multiple obviousness rejections (103) over various prior art combinations in electromechanical devices. This decision moves the dispute into trial phase proceedings.
patent instituted
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00981
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
patent denied
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
· IPR2024-00980
The PTAB denied Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology's IPR challenge against CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.'s virtual clothing measurement patent. The Board found no motivation in the prior art (Grinspun and Graphicxtras) to combine them to achieve the claimed method of measuring 2D patterns with separation awareness.
