US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 352 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent final
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
· IPR2024-00868
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
patent final
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
· IPR2024-00850
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou. The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to solve known industry problems like congestion and inefficiency in automated material handling systems.
patent Final Written Decision
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2024-00856
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
patent Final Written Decision
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00846
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00828
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
patent final
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
· IPR2024-00839
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art, specifically targeting anti-counterfeiting micro mirror technology. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 were deemed obvious based on the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich.
patent Final Written Decision
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00814
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
patent final
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
· IPR2024-00821
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding independent claim 23 of the '698 patent unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda. The Board adopted the petitioner's plain meaning for key claim terms related to signal strength comparisons.
patent Final Written Decision
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2024-00810
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
patent final
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
· IPR2024-00809
The Board found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Limont, Wright, and Xu, disclosed the claimed invention. This final decision provides a strong defense against infringement claims in wireless communications technology.
patent Final Written Decision
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00807
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision hinged on the combination of various prior art references to demonstrate obviousness in vibration module technology.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2024-00806
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
patent final
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00794
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
patent Final Written Decision
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00795
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
patent final
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00792
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's arguments that claims 1-6 of patent 11468957 were unpatentable. The Board found the anticipation argument failed because Suzuki did not disclose a distinct 'pre-verify stage,' and obviousness arguments failed due to insufficient establishment of required elements over prior art combinations.
patent Final Written Decision
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
· IPR2024-00791
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's challenge to four claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish obviousness over prior art references, specifically Toyama.
patent Final Written Decision
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00790
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3 unpatentable over Kim due to obviousness (103), while claims 4 and 5 were found patentable. The Board construed the key term 'surrounding' as meaning 'all around' or 'encircling.'
patent final
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00789
The PTAB found claims 1–6 and 11–13 unpatentable over Tessariol, while finding them patentable over Park. The Board's decision hinged on claim construction, specifically defining 'dummy source structure' as one that does not function as a source to memory cells. This outcome significantly impacts the validity of the asserted claims in 3D Memory Devices (NAND).
patent final
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2024-00786
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
patent Final Written Decision
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00788
Micron successfully established the unpatentability of five claims (15, 16, 17, 19, and 20) over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala. The Board found that various embodiments in the prior art taught all limitations of the challenged claims.
patent final
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00783
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that the terms used in the patent provided sufficiently definite structure and that the combination of existing technology rendered the claimed invention obvious.
patent final
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00782
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed hybrid device and its methods were predictable combinations of prior art references like Buer, Lee, Nishikawa, and Dua.
patent final
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
· IPR2024-00779
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Curry and Rabu, rendered the claimed mobile device accident detection methods obvious to a POSITA.
patent Final Written Decision
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
