US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 336 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
· IPR2024-00827
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to location tracking and wireless systems. The Board found insufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over the cited prior art, particularly regarding specific limitations like 'tracking period' or 'tracking request.'
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
· IPR2024-00826
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Uber Technologies against Envosys, LLC, finding that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding combining references to teach location tracking and geographic boundary disclosure.
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
· IPR2024-00825
Uber Technologies' IPR challenge against Envosys' location tracking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding the scope of geographic notification limitations.
patent instituted · Mar 5, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
· IPR2024-00791
Micron Technology challenged YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY over its 3D NAND Memory technology in an IPR proceeding. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness based on prior art, moving the case into trial preparation.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 5, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00893
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims of the '986 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the combination of prior art references, including Gai and an IEEE publication, taught the full scope of the claimed network failure recovery method.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 5, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
· IPR2024-00791
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's challenge to four claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish obviousness over prior art references, specifically Toyama.
patent null · Mar 4, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00766
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
patent null · Mar 4, 2024
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00669
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
patent denied · Mar 4, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00766
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
patent instituted · Mar 4, 2024
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00669
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 4, 2024
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00669
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that multiple claims of the '077 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine existing RF ablation and nasal treatment technologies.
patent instituted · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
patent · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00470
Greenthread seeks a PTAB Director Review to overturn the Board’s claim construction that narrows the carrier‑movement limitation of its semiconductor patent. The owner argues the construction conflicts with the specification, prosecution history, and district‑court rulings, and that the cited references do not teach the required functionality.
patent · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00468
Greenthread, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction in a power‑semiconductor patent owned by Monolithic Power Systems. The owner contends the Board’s construction mischaracterizes the claims and that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
patent · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00470
Monolithic Power Systems argues that the PTAB correctly applied the prosecution history to the ‘aid the movement of carriers’ limitation and that Greenthread’s Director Review request merely repeats arguments already rejected. The petitioner seeks denial of the request to preserve the invalidity finding.
patent instituted · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00470
The PTAB instituted an IPR on claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Monolithic Power Systems would prevail, based on obviousness arguments over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe.
patent · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems argues that Greenthread’s request for Director Review should be denied because the Board’s interpretation of the claim term “aid” was correct and the arguments have already been rejected in prior proceedings.
patent denied · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00468
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
patent · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
patent instituted · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00468
Monolithic Power Systems successfully instituted an IPR against Greenthread’s 8,421,195 patent covering CMOS devices with graded dopant regions, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent null · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00470
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. initiated an IPR challenging Claim 44 of Greenthread's U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222 under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition asserts that the claimed CMOS semiconductor fabrication structure is obvious based on prior art references including Onoda and Kawagoe.
patent null · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 regarding semiconductor device claims (7 and 8) in an IPR proceeding. The Petitioner argues that the claimed graded dopant profiles and electric drift fields are obvious over prior art references like Onoda and Kawagoe. The Board has instituted the case for trial, finding the evidence compelling enough to proceed with the challenge.
patent null · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00468
Monolithic Power Systems challenges Greenthread's semiconductor patent (8421195) before the PTAB, asserting that the claimed CMOS device improvements are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references, including Onoda and Kawagoe, to demonstrate a lack of inventive step in creating electric drift fields via graded dopant concentration.
patent · Mar 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
