US PTAB IP Litigation

patent null · Feb 29, 2024

T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00607

T-Mobile and other petitioners successfully petitioned to challenge Wireless Alliance's patent (9144106) regarding carrier management methods. The petition raised grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art from Lee et al. and Kim et al., leading the Board to institute the review.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00534

Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.

patent null · Feb 29, 2024

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00535

Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.

patent null · Feb 29, 2024

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00533

Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00019

The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.

Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.

· IPR2024-00618

Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00608

A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00607

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by major carriers against Wireless Alliance, LLC's patent 9144106. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the compelling merits standard for unpatentability under § 103.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00535

The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00534

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al., despite arguments from the patent owner that the disclosures were too general or lacked specific enablement. The Board found sufficient evidence to support anticipation and obviousness claims based on prior art Sung ’026.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 29, 2024

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00533

The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Samsung's 8974270, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that combining prior art references renders multiple claims unpatentable.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00535

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.

patent final · Feb 29, 2024

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00534

The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.

patent final · Feb 29, 2024

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00533

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.

patent instituted · Feb 28, 2024

Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.

· IPR2024-00616

Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.

patent instituted · Feb 28, 2024

Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.

· IPR2024-00616

Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 28, 2024

Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.

· IPR2024-00616

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art references rendered the claimed features predictable to one skilled in the art.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00495

Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00496

Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent, arguing the PTAB’s denial of institution was an abuse of discretion for failing to construe “having” and to analyze prior art. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision.

patent denied · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00558

Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs that target Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused its discretion by omitting claim construction and prior‑art analysis. The request seeks reversal of the denial.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00558

The USPTO Director denied Microchip Technology's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00558 involving Aptiv's patent 9,460,037. The order provides no further substantive analysis.

patent denied · Feb 27, 2024

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00495

Aptiv Technologies withdrew its request for Director Review in the IPR against Microchip Technology, with Microchip not opposing. The withdrawal is made without prejudice to appeal the Final Written Decision.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00496

The USPTO Director denied Microchip's request to review the institution denial of Aptiv's automotive electronics patent.