US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 351 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent final
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00973
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
patent Final Written Decision
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00981
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
patent final
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-00965
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
patent final
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-00964
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
patent final
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00960
The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.
patent final
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00959
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
patent final
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00958
The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
patent Final Written Decision
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00943
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found successful anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Rao.
patent Final Written Decision
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00942
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.
patent final
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00940
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
patent Final Written Decision
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
The PTAB found that dependent claims 19-21 were unpatentable over prior art references DeMaw and Macnally. The decision hinged on the petitioner's successful demonstration via computer simulation that routine circuit optimizations fell within the scope of the cited prior art.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00928
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
patent final
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00919
The PTAB found that all 21 challenged claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C. were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board determined that prior art, specifically Leaning and Gamble, taught or rendered the claimed Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) technology obvious.
patent final
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00918
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 16 claims of the '564 patent are unpatentable over prior art, primarily Leaning. The Board construed 'continuous playback' to mean no interruption occurs between files during a rate shift, finding this limitation was taught by Leaning.
patent final
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00917
The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.
patent Final Written Decision
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00913
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that ten of the fifteen challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng). The Board found sufficient motivation to combine Blease and Weyman for distributed architecture features, while also finding that combining Blease/Weyman with Hu was plausible for bandwidth efficiency improvements.
patent final
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00909
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
patent final
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
patent final
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00899
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
· IPR2024-00896
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
patent Final Written Decision
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00893
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims of the '986 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the combination of prior art references, including Gai and an IEEE publication, taught the full scope of the claimed network failure recovery method.
patent Final Written Decision
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00885
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
patent final
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00875
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
patent final
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
· IPR2024-00858
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability for claims 5-7 and 16-19. The Board found that the prior art references failed to teach or suggest the claimed 'closure retention mechanism' with sufficient structural identity.
