US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 350 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Feb 8, 2024
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-01226
LENOVO failed its IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II's patent covering integrated circuit calibration, as the Board found Petitioner could not overcome key limitations of the claims using prior art. The denial centered on insufficient accounting for a three-dimensional 'valid operation range.'
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01225
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent denied · Feb 8, 2024
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2024-01224
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00124
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
patent instituted · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
Lenovo successfully challenged several claims of Intellectual Ventures II's patent (8474016) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute on all challenged claims. The Board found strong evidence that prior art references like Neufeld and PCI Bridge Spec taught or rendered obvious various limitations of the asserted claims.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 8, 2024
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 · Feb 8, 2024
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 · Feb 8, 2024
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 Written Decision · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
patent final · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00124
The Board found that U.S. Patent No. 7,325,140 B2 is unpatentable due to obviousness over prior art references. Specifically, the combination of Neufeld and Syvanne renders claims 11 and 12 obvious, while other combinations involving IPMI render multiple claims invalid.
patent · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00124
Lenovo challenges 7325140 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art related to remote device management. The petitioner contends that allowance was based on low-level implementation details already disclosed in references like Neufeld and IPMI/Lawrence.
patent · Feb 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
Lenovo challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,474,016 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that known concepts of remote management and encrypted communication were implemented using low-level details already disclosed in existing technology.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,910,984 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01151
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs involving Dyson patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2024-01094
Pictiva Displays requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision finding Samsung’s OLED patent claims unpatentable. The Owner alleges the Board ignored contradictory expert testimony and introduced a new obviousness argument in reply, violating procedural rules.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00921
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00924, which rendered the Director Review request for IPR2024-00920 moot.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
patent · Feb 7, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991 and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public policy and resource efficiency.
