US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 357 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent final
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00402
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
patent final
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
· IPR2024-00401
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all unpatentability challenges against the broadhead patent. The Board upheld the patent owner's position on claim construction, specifically defining 'blade member' as having a cutting surface. Despite detailed arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references, the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
patent final
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
· IPR2024-00399
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.
patent final
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00392
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
patent final
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
· IPR2024-00388
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
patent final
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
· IPR2024-00380
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining references like Cohen and Legein, or Francesch and Legein, was motivated by intrinsic evidence and skilled artisan capabilities. This decision significantly impacts the patent owner's portfolio in plasma polymerization coatings for electronics.
patent final
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00378
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
patent final
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00377
The PTAB issued a final decision finding claims 19-36 unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg was sufficient to teach key limitations in electronic trading/forex methods.
patent final
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00376
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
patent final
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-00375
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.
patent Final Written Decision
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00369
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,706 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The grounds included anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), utilizing prior art references such as Horie, Kano, and Kobayashi.
patent Final Written Decision
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00368
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
patent Final Written Decision
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00344
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the prior art reference Agarwala. The decision adopted Petitioner's construction that 'data beacons' was merely an intended use, and found that Agarwala disclosed every structural limitation of the claims through a combination of disclosures.
patent Final Written Decision
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
· IPR2024-00367
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art reference, Horie, anticipated the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This decision relates to Mobile Payment Authorization technology and is tied to related District Court litigation.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00331
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 of the '886 patent are unpatentable. The Board concluded that the claimed fraud detection methods were obvious over combinations of prior art references including Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese.
patent Final Written Decision
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00341
The Board found all challenged claims of patent 8406733 unpatentable over prior art references TS-23.140 and Ogawa by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on demonstrating that conventional design choices, such as using SSL/TLS and implementing modems, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00329
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the combination of prior art references Stone and Hoyos. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner Apple Inc.'s arguments that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these systems for improved fraud resistance in electronic transactions.
patent final
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
· IPR2024-00330
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
patent Final Written Decision
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00310
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The patent relates to random access procedures in LTE/5G apparatuses and involved significant claim construction regarding power ramping functions.
patent final
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
· IPR2024-00287
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.
patent final
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
· IPR2024-00286
The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.
patent final
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· IPR2024-00270
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability for claims 15-20 of the '595 patent. Claims 1-14 were mooted by disclaimer, resulting in no challenged claims being found unpatentable.
patent Final Written Decision
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
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.
