US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01271

Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01270

Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep linking technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Belanger and Halevy.

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01270

Google LLC's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against Metarail, Inc.'s patent 9633378, concerning data mapping technologies.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 9, 2024

Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.

· IPR2024-01269

Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Metarail, Inc.'s patent on deep-linking and e-commerce technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 9, 2024

Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 9, 2024

Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

patent · Feb 9, 2024

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.

Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01259

LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’111 patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

Arista Networks petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial that blocked its IPR on three MPLS‑related claims of Orckit’s ’821 patent. The petition alleges the Board’s claim construction was unsupported and that the prior‑art combination teaches the challenged limitation.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2024-01248

Court decision.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

patent denied · Feb 8, 2024

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation have reached a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

patent denied · Feb 8, 2024

Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2024-01224

Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01258

LEDup Manufacturing filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s decision that claims 3 and 8 of its ‘252 patent remain patentable.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2024-01248

Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 10,652,111. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

patent denied · Feb 8, 2024

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2024-01248

Court decision.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2024-01224

Lenovo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Intellectual Ventures was rejected. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation