US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2024-01224

Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 8, 2024

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

· IPR2024-01248

The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2024-00109

Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2024-00109

Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01259

LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Seasonal Specialties' patent covering series LED circuits with bypass resistors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are anticipated or obvious based on prior art disclosures in lighting technology.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01258

LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252) covering LED bypass circuits and series lighting technology. The petitioner asserts that claims 1-14 are unpatentable based on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references. This proceeding centers on whether the claimed circuit details were already known in the field.

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

· IPR2024-01250

Petitioners challenge 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8089946, arguing they are obvious over prior art references like Walton and Learned. The central argument is that supporting legacy protocol modes in multi-user environments was a well-known concept in the field of wireless communications.

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

· IPR2024-01248

Samsung petitions to invalidate Collision's '071 patent, arguing that its Multi-user Detection improvements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioners assert that prior art references (Jin, Baum, Tsai) combine known techniques in MIMO systems to render the claimed features non-inventive.

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2024-01245

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging several claims related to Globally Asynchronous Locally Synchronous (GALS) clocking and Dynamic Voltage Scaling (DVS). The Petition asserts multiple grounds of obviousness, arguing that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed microprocessor architectures predictable.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01238

Arista Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging Orckit Corporation's patent (8,830,821) on grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge centers on the combination of Doshi’s MPLS path selection with reoptimization techniques from prior art like Guichard and Huang.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01237

Arista Networks has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,545,740 held by Orckit Corporation, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed bi-directional link aggregation and hash-based selection mechanisms were already known in prior art references like Bruckman, Basso, and Holdsworth. This challenge targets core networking technology used for load balancing.

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

· IPR2024-01226

Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.

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

· IPR2024-01225

Lenovo challenged the validity of a University of Rochester patent related to multiple clock domain microprocessors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Shenai and Georgiou.

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

· IPR2024-01224

Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01259

The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable, proceeding on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The case involves resistor bypass circuits for LED lighting, with the Petitioner arguing various prior art combinations teach the claimed invention.

LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC

· IPR2024-01258

The PTAB institution decision found sufficient grounds for LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD.'s challenge against Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252). The Board established reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references. This moves the case toward a full trial at PTAB.

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

· IPR2024-01248

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Samsung against Collision Communications' patent covering Multiuser Detection (MUD) technology. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art adequately taught the claimed unique signal parameters, leading to a lack of particularity in the arguments.

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

· IPR2024-01250

Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against Collision Communications was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board specifically cited deficiencies in how Samsung addressed critical limitations within the challenged claims using the prior art.

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2024-01245

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01239

Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01238

Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.

Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation

· IPR2024-01238

The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.