US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 348 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent final
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
· IPR2024-01261
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
patent Final Written Decision
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
· IPR2024-01259
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–15) based on anticipation and obviousness over various combinations of prior art. However, the Board rejected arguments regarding Claims 3 and 8, finding insufficient articulation in the Petition to support those findings.
patent Final Written Decision
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
· IPR2024-01258
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation and obviousness for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–14) related to a resistor bypass circuit for LEDs. The Board found that prior art references disclosed all limitations or provided clear motivation for substitution in multiple instances.
patent final
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01231
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
patent final
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
· IPR2024-01230
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
patent final
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01225
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
patent final
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01223
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,949,389 unpatentable. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on Kijima and Suzuki, emphasizing that the prior art did not meet the agreed-upon definition of 'planarization layer' which requires suppressing underlying topography.
patent final
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01222
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
patent final
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2024-01221
The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.
patent Final Written Decision
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-01219
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining Richardson's jump starter apparatus with Zhao's USB step-up charging technology, and through other combinations involving Epower/Krieger references.
patent final
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01212
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
patent Final Written Decision
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
· IPR2024-01213
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
patent final
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01211
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over Racz, Fitz, and Lee based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted Petitioner's broad definition of 'thermal ablation systems,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow focus on 'RF neurotomy.'
patent Final Written Decision
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01210
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1-17 and 48-52 are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Racz, Fitz, Lee) was an obvious modification to create functional RF neurotomy devices.
patent Final Written Decision
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
· IPR2024-01209
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board adopted the Petitioner's broad definition of POSA in the field of thermal ablation systems.
patent Final Written Decision
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01203
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
patent Final Written Decision
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01199
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
patent final
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01198
The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
patent final
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01194
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that claims 10-16 and 19 were unpatentable. The Board found insufficient motivation in the prior art to combine references, particularly regarding optimal dopant concentrations for solar cell fabrication techniques.
patent Final Written Decision
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
· IPR2024-01192
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Specifically, Claim 1 and dependent claims were found obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations like the Lorex Manual and Kim '941. This decision significantly weakens the Patent Owner's position in this IPR proceeding.
patent Final Written Decision
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
· IPR2024-01193
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation by Zhang (Sec. 102) and obviousness using combinations of Zhang/Zill and Liu/Zhang (Sec. 103).
patent final
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01187
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
patent final
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01186
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
patent final
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
· IPR2024-01179
The PTAB found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Waldner and Dynatek, along with others like Auld and McIver, rendered the claimed aggregate transferring apparatus predictable engineering.
