US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 327 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00723
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
patent denied · Mar 22, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00722
The PTAB denied VIZIO's request to challenge Multimedia Technologies' patent (9,232,168) because a key claim term ('a different user interface device') was found to be indefinite. The Board ruled it could not assess obviousness without clear claim scope.
patent denied · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00721
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references related to integrated circuit power management.
patent denied · Mar 22, 2024
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-00720
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID's patent 8253438. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing obviousness over prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno, particularly regarding the 'plurality of power islands' limitation.
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00714
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution in the IPR against Immersion Corporation's haptics patent (10627907). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references, particularly Goldenberg.
patent instituted · Mar 22, 2024
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
· IPR2024-00642
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenged North Atlantic Imports' cooking appliance patent on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be obvious based on the prior art references. This moves the dispute toward trial preparation in District Court.
patent final · Mar 22, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00723
The PTAB found all 12 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board concluded that combining various prior art references—including Kim, TechnoBuffalo, and Ma—rendered the VOD user interface methods obvious.
patent final · Mar 22, 2024
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
· IPR2024-00714
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907 B2 unpatentable under both § 102 and § 103. The Board rejected the patent owner's narrow claim constructions, finding them inconsistent with intrinsic evidence, and concluded that prior art references (Goldenberg, Rosenberg) anticipated or rendered the claims obvious.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,212,146 after reaching a settlement. The motion cites statutory authority for termination and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
patent · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
Dell and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal in district court.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00709
LinkedIn and Intent IQ settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,715,878 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 20, 2024
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00709
LinkedIn and patent holder Intent IQ (AlmondNet) reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,715,878, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
patent instituted · Mar 20, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
The PTAB granted Roku’s motion to join its inter partes review with Meta’s pending IPR, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23 of the ’878 patent on the same 103 grounds used in the earlier proceeding.
patent null · Mar 20, 2024
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00709
LinkedIn Corporation filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of patent 10715878, arguing they are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Baig and Laidlaw to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in targeted advertising and device association technology.
patent null · Mar 20, 2024
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00708
DELL INC. petitioned the PTAB challenging AX Wireless LLC's patent (11212146) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are rendered obvious by either a single prior art reference (Yu) or a combination of Hansen and WWiSE.
patent null · Mar 20, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
Roku challenges Intent IQ's patent 10715878 in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references (Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, Hahn, Xu, Gerace) to establish obviousness across various technical features related to targeted advertising and cross-device tracking.
patent final · Mar 20, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2024-00666
The IPR petition against Intent IQ's '878 patent failed entirely, as the Board found no unpatentability for any challenged claim. The petitioner (Roku) argued obviousness over multiple prior art combinations related to targeted advertising using IP addresses.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
HPE and Cisco have settled with Cobblestone Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over the ’802 patent covering IEEE 802.11n technology.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco settled their IPR dispute with Cobblestone Wireless, filing the settlement as confidential and requesting termination of the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
· IPR2024-00707
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 19, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00691
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
