US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 358 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00124
Lenovo challenges 7325140 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art related to remote device management. The petitioner contends that allowance was based on low-level implementation details already disclosed in references like Neufeld and IPMI/Lawrence.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00122
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,061,190 by asserting obviousness (Section 103) over multiple combinations of prior art references including Nakagawa, Raven, Veatch, Connelly, and Cline. The petitioner argues that the combination of these references would have been predictable to a POSITA, while also contesting the applicability of § 325(d) discretionary denial.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
US Conec Ltd. challenged 17 claims of Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s patent using grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed optical fiber connectors are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Raven, Kuffel, Wong, and Gniadek. The case was dismissed without a final ruling due to a stipulation not to pursue district court grounds.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of Senko Advanced Components' patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation based on prior art references including Nguyen, Lin, Scherer, and Gniadek. The petitioner argues that combining these references yields predictable improvements to the optical connector technology.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. challenges the validity of Senko Advanced Components' '369 patent, arguing that various claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references (Scherer, Lee, Gniadek). The petition asserts both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically targeting connector housing arrangements in optical fiber technology.
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
Lenovo challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,474,016 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that known concepts of remote management and encrypted communication were implemented using low-level details already disclosed in existing technology.
