US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 350 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent Final Written Decision
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01088
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding 59 claims of the '758 patent unpatentable based primarily on obviousness (103) over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine these prior art references to teach numerous claimed features in the touch interface technology.
patent Final Written Decision
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01087
The PTAB found that the combination of Hackborn's live wallpaper concept with Westerman's gesture recognition methods rendered several claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Claims 1 and 23 were deemed unpatentable based on this combination.
patent Final Written Decision
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01085
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the claims patentable over the cited prior art. The Petitioner (Apple Inc.) failed to demonstrate that combining Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording would teach a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art how to implement the claimed translucent virtual display layer widget overlaying image content.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01084
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
patent Final Written Decision
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01081
The Board found the claims unpatentable under 103(a) over Goossens2003 and Drake. The decision hinged on demonstrating that an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine a Network-on-Chip (NoC) architecture with a Quality of Service (QoS) management system for resource optimization.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01083
The PTAB found claims related to gesture-equipped touch screens unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley) taught all limitations through predictable results.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-01078
The Board upheld the validity of Oura Health's smart ring patent against Samsung Electronics in a Final Written Decision. The Panel found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art combining physical activity monitoring and wearable input devices.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-01077
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
patent final
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
· IPR2024-01072
The PTAB found all 26 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features of smart eyewear were taught by combinations of prior art references, including Jannard, Rosenblatt, Chen, and Nielsen. This final decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the wearable technology space.
patent final
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
· IPR2024-01071
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combinations of prior art references, such as Howell-596 and Howell-158, rendered the claimed features in smart eyeglasses obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
patent final
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
· IPR2024-01070
The PTAB found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for a majority of challenged claims (Claims 1–9 and 12–19) based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board relied heavily on prior art references, notably Brunton, to establish these findings in the field of smart eyeglasses electronics integration.
patent Final Written Decision
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
· IPR2024-01069
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims of the electronic eyewear system unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as Howell-719 and Sikonowiz, rendered the claimed invention obvious across various claim sets.
patent final
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01067
The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
patent Final Written Decision
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-01052
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent final
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
· IPR2024-01048
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
patent Final Written Decision
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01040
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
patent Final Written Decision
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01039
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
patent final
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
· IPR2024-01030
The PTAB found that 33 out of 37 challenged claims were unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. Key findings included the rejection of Petitioner's argument regarding 'hermetically sealed' meaning waterproof, and successful challenges using multiple prior art combinations like Howell-596/Howell-833/Blum-741.
patent final
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01038
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
patent final
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00994
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
patent final
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01014
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
patent Final Written Decision
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00990
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). Specifically, claims 11, 12, and 14–20 were found obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board also denied the Patent Owner's motion to amend regarding substitute claims 29-37, rejecting some for lack of enablement/utility.
patent Final Written Decision
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2024-00984
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00983
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically regarding vibration-generating devices. The Board concluded that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine prior art references like Alexander and Cosper to achieve the claimed results.
