Brian P. Murphy
81 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
81 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 B2. The PTAB terminated the three related IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after the parties filed a joint motion and settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola settled their IPR dispute with Multifold over U.S. Patent 9,792,007 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Board found that claims 1, 2, and 9 were unpatentable over prior art references Tseng and Mizuno based on obviousness. The remaining claims (3-8 and 10-24) were deemed patentable.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 24 claims of the patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a broad construction for key terms like 'outer illumination surface' and 'translucent light pipe,' supporting the finding of obviousness across multiple grounds.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that Smith Interface Technologies' claims were obvious. The Board found no persuasive evidence in the prior art combination to support the claimed progressive blurring or menu appearance during gesture detection.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding progressive menu sliding during gesture detection.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 20 claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable over prior art references Mooney and Lee. The Board successfully construed key terms like 'activation cue' functionally, agreeing that a quality Bluetooth signal satisfies this requirement.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references Yook, Bauer, and Lee. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of multi-screen user interfaces.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 using prior art references Ogawa, Choi, and Yook. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'open application state' and 'display.'
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB determined that all 20 challenged claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding obviousness over combinations of Suga and Gorsuch. The Board successfully rejected the Patent Owner's attempts to narrow key claim terms, upholding the Petitioner's broad interpretation of functional language.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' IPR against STA Group, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges over prior art Choksi.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Motorola Solutions against STA Group regarding patent 9319852. The Board found that the Petitioner met its burden by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks, Inc. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8190610) regarding MapReduce data grouping. The PTAB denied institution because Petitioner relied on speculative hindsight rather than demonstrating a clear motivation from prior art references like Pike and Chowdhuri.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against WellcomeMat, LLC's patent (8307286) concerning online video/real estate marketing. The Board found that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard despite prior district court litigation.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC's IPR petition against a patent covering image processing methods was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art references like Luo-250.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent US 8355574 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The PTAB granted institution, moving the case into the merits phase where Google will argue that all 12 claims are unpatentable.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its challenge against VideoLabs' patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation). The Board found sufficient support for anticipation over prior art 'Russ,' while denying institution on obviousness grounds.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims related to conditional access and DRM systems were unpatentable over prior art (Russ). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103), leading to institution of the IPR.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to conditional access and DRM technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art 'Russ' and 'Robert.'
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.