Barbara A. Parvis
54 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
54 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR because the efficiency of ongoing parallel district court litigation outweighed the merits of the patent claims. The denial was based on the discretionary Fintiv factors, despite strong arguments from the petitioner regarding the lack of prior consideration for the grounds.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Wrinkl's group messaging patent (11973731). The Board accepted arguments that the claims are unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over prior art, including Kakuta.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully secured institution in an IPR against Wrinkl, Inc., challenging 30 claims based on anticipation by the 'Cohen' prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under 35 U.S.C. § 102, moving the case toward trial.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.
Genius Sports v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR against claims 16-30 of the '218 patent, finding sufficient evidence to overcome initial defenses. The Board found that Petitioner successfully demonstrated a rationale for combining prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) to meet the institutional standard for obviousness.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision was granted, finding sufficient rationale for the Petitioner to combine teachings from prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically found that combining Ellis's content source with Spivey’s live data server devices would improve latency in real-time event delivery.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive regarding live event broadcasting claims. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments that the claimed technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Ellis and Spivey. This sets the stage for a full trial on unpatentability grounds.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims relating to live event content delivery systems are likely unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness for multiple claims, leading to institution.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for Genius Sports Ltd.'s claims against SportsCastr Inc. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog) taught or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependents based on the preliminary record. This sets a significant hurdle for SportsCastr's patent validity in digital media streaming technology.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against SportsCastr Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board found that claims 1-9 were obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically demonstrating how known techniques could reduce data latency in live sports content delivery.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Mullen Industries' patent '11096039', demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board favorably construed key terms, finding that 'location access rights' encompass group permissions, which supports the Petitioner's case.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s IPR petition against Entropic Communications LLC's '566 patent was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board rejected all asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding obviousness over various prior art combinations in OFDMA/Spectrum Sharing technology.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,233,978, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,978 before trial. The Board granted a Joint Termination Motion and dismissed the petitions.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 before the Board could institute a trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the PTAB granted, dismissing the petitions.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution, keeping the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint termination motion was granted, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before any trial was instituted.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The denial focused on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references, particularly regarding specific technical features like webserver functionality.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.