US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 346 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent final
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
· IPR2024-01473
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
patent final
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01467
The PTAB issued a final decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones. The Board concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate non-hindsight motivation for combining the references or making the necessary technical modifications, citing lack of support for millisecond time resolution.
patent Final Written Decision
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
· IPR2024-01458
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
patent final
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01451
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.
patent Final Written Decision
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01447
The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.
patent final
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-01450
The PTAB rejected Cisco's IPR challenge against the '088 patent, finding no grounds for obviousness over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath. The Board construed the key term "other connections" narrowly to mean established connections with allocated bandwidth, favoring the Patent Owner's interpretation.
patent final
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01439
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established a motivation to combine prior art elements, particularly regarding local user control over shared content.
patent Final Written Decision
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01438
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
patent final
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01437
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all five challenged claims unpatentable over prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining references like Kaplan/Mardiks and Maeda/Deforche in the field of Audio/Video Conferencing.
patent final
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01436
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
patent final
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-01419
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
patent final
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board adopted a broad claim construction, defining 'current state' to include both online and offline device states, which facilitated the finding of obviousness.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
patent Final Written Decision
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art reference Norström disclosed key features, leading to findings of anticipation for most claims. For others, combinations of Yin and Koshimizu were deemed obvious over the patent.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01402
The Board issued a final decision finding that all challenged claims (19) were unpatentable. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness and anticipation based on combining prior art references in the field of SOI switching circuits.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2024-01399
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
patent Final Written Decision
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01398
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
patent final
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01381
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,014,090 B2 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the specific structural limitations claimed by the patent.
patent Final Written Decision
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
· IPR2024-01380
The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent final
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-01378
The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
patent final
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
· IPR2024-01375
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01364
The PTAB found all 39 claims of patent 8127984 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the claimed 'functional emulation' was obvious when combining prior art references like Willgert and Mooney.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01363
The PTAB found all 32 claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board concluded that the combination of Willgert and Mooney, often combined with Holloway and Pitroda, rendered the claimed RFID emulation/voice calling technology obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
