Brian D. Range
70 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
70 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP successfully challenged the patentability of claims related to low-friction slide systems and mesh layers. The PTAB granted institution after finding likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case toward trial preparation while providing preliminary claim construction guidance on key terms.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging claims related to electrically-powered aerosol generators. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of unpatentability, despite narrowing claim construction on 'smoking article' to devices containing tobacco.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., citing efficiency concerns. The Board found that despite arguments regarding material error and prior art relevance, denying institution served the integrity of the system given the parallel ITC investigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Ecto World's petition to institute IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings regarding a tobacco-containing smoking article, citing the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error despite using previously presented prior art.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision successfully convinced the PTAB that GoPro's video stabilization patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have combined prior art teachings from Zhou and Kwatra to achieve better stabilization techniques. This decision establishes a significant challenge to the validity of key features in modern video processing patents.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Northern Research entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01044 covering patent RE48,629. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA successfully petitioned to have Bell Northern Research's wireless communication patents instituted for obviousness under § 103. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, including Jones and 802.11a, renders multiple claims unpatentable. This institution decision sets a strong precedent regarding OFDM technology in wireless communications.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a vaporizing smoking article patent, citing the existence and advanced stage of a parallel ITC investigation.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. successfully challenged RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.'s patent on electrically heated smoking articles. The PTAB instituted the IPR after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Morgan and Takeuchi.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, arguing that multiple prior art combinations render the claims unpatentable under 102 and 103. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, despite factors favoring discretionary denial, leading to the institution of the review on all 25 challenged claims.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that POSCO Co., Ltd. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim against ArcelorMittal's patent. The Board found grounds for anticipation and obviousness across all 30 claims based on prior art including Engels, Takagi, and GMW14400.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components, Inc. settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPR proceedings, including the one covering patent 11,307,369 B2. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The grounds for institution were multiple obviousness rejections (103) over various prior art combinations in electromechanical devices. This decision moves the dispute into trial phase proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically regarding vibration-generating devices. The Board concluded that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine prior art references like Alexander and Cosper to achieve the claimed results.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB denied US Conec's request to institute IPR against Senko Advanced Components, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims related to fiber optic connectors.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB instituted trial on all 17 claims of patent 11415760, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for many claims over Raven and Kuffel. The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of 'slidably received,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow interpretation.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation lost their IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc., regarding vibration module technology. The PTAB denied the petition because the prior art did not teach the necessary algorithmic structure for the claimed control component.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00569, finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenged claims regarding vibration modules and actuators. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) by upholding the requirement for an algorithmic step in the 'control component' structure.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment's IPR challenge against Resonant Systems was denied by the PTAB, finding that Sony failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any challenged claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's view regarding the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure for obviousness.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.
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.