Christopher L. Ogden
86 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
86 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
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.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent related to beamforming in wireless communications. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 'compelling merits' despite arguments regarding obviousness.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied AT&T and other petitioners' challenges to Innovative Sonic Limited's wireless patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected arguments that 3GPP specifications anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed error handling method.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied the petition to invalidate claims related to small cell enhancements, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning technical limitations in resource scheduling.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled four inter partes review proceedings before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T Services Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. was denied by the PTAB, as all six Fintiv factors weighed in favor of discretionary denial. The Board found that procedural issues, including substantial delays and parallel district court litigation, outweighed the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding beam management technology.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four related IPRs before any trial was instituted.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Iarnach Technologies Limited's patent (9806892) on grounds of obviousness in passive optical networks (PON). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims based on combinations of prior art references.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories challenged Newtonoid Technologies' '818 patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references like Prusik and Vaillant. The PTAB issued an institution decision finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 20 challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR petition against S.M.R Innovations, finding no reasonable likelihood that the 'apparatus for rerouting data' patent would be invalidated based on prior art references like Chihara and BluetoothSpec.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding several claims, focusing on how prior art combines to teach all limitations of the asserted claims in data routing and multimedia transmission technology.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
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.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung's IPR petition against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board determined that the proximity to a parallel district court trial date weighed heavily in favor of discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition due to concerns over parallel district court litigation and duplicative efforts. The Board found that the central technical issue remained identical, despite petitioner concessions regarding trial timing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
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.