US PTAB IP Litigation

Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.

patent · Feb 4, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited

patent denied · Feb 4, 2024

Cisco’s petition argues that the Board correctly interpreted the term “memory circuit” to include multiple components, rejecting Lionra’s claim of procedural error. The Director Review Request is urged to be denied.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited

patent null · Feb 4, 2024

The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00734, finding the Board's claim‑construction error harmless. The patent owned by Lionra Technologies remains in force.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited

patent instituted · Feb 4, 2024

Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 4, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited

patent null · Feb 2, 2024

The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

patent instituted · Feb 2, 2024

Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

patent Denial of Request for Rehearing · Feb 2, 2024

Tesla successfully instituted an IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering power management/cruise control systems, asserting obviousness over all challenged claims (1-20). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds that combining prior art references like Hongo and Obradovich renders the claimed technology obvious.

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

patent final · Feb 2, 2024

The PTAB denied Tesla's request for rehearing on the Final Written Decision, upholding the finding that claims 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,882,399 are unpatentable over Newstrom et al. The Board found Petitioner failed to adequately prove the database was remote.

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.

TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC

· IPR2024-00366

The IPR concerning patent 8,760,454 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. Realtek and ATI filed a joint motion to end the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.

TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC

· IPR2024-00366

TCL Industries and ATI Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2024-00366 concerning U.S. Patent 8,760,454. The motion indicates a settlement and seeks to end the proceeding.

SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-00340

The IPR concerning Ridge Wallet's patent 10,791,808 was terminated after the parties reached a confidential settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement kept separate from the patent file.

SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-00340

The Ridge Wallet and Shenzhen Pincan Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00378

Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's '930 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated trading and currency conversion methods are conventional features of electronic financial systems known prior to 2007.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00377

Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00376

Askeladden L.L.C. filed a petition challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (US 10062107) before the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable over prior art based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-00375

Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging patent 10776863 held by Intercurrency Software LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on the combination of electronic trading features and currency conversion methods in financial technology.

patent instituted · Feb 1, 2024

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00369

Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.

Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC

· IPR2024-00368

Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent 8783564, asserting that its core claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Horie and Kobayashi. The Board ruled against discretionary denial, moving the case into active litigation status.