DAVID C. McKONE
67 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
67 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Board specifically found Claim 1 obvious over Lorex Guide and Kim, while also addressing issues of written description and statutory eligibility.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi ’1573, Giobbi ’1394, and Dua. The Board successfully rejected arguments regarding means-plus-function interpretation, finding key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' conveyed sufficient definite structure. This decision represents a significant win for the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that eight claims of the patent were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically regarding jump starting devices with USB charging capabilities. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine existing technologies for convenience and practical benefit.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed hybrid device and its methods were predictable combinations of prior art references like Buer, Lee, Nishikawa, and Dua.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that the terms used in the patent provided sufficiently definite structure and that the combination of existing technology rendered the claimed invention obvious.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation by Zhang (Sec. 102) and obviousness using combinations of Zhang/Zill and Liu/Zhang (Sec. 103).
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Specifically, Claim 1 and dependent claims were found obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations like the Lorex Manual and Kim '941. This decision significantly weakens the Patent Owner's position in this IPR proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
Apple Inc. v.--
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all five challenged claims unpatentable over prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining references like Kaplan/Mardiks and Maeda/Deforche in the field of Audio/Video Conferencing.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established a motivation to combine prior art elements, particularly regarding local user control over shared content.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for multiple claims related to peer-to-peer connection establishment. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as the Lorex Guide and Kim, taught all limitations of several claimed features. This outcome significantly advances the challenge against the patent's validity in this technology area.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for IPR against Proxense, LLC's patent (8646042) based on obviousness grounds. The Board granted institution after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple combinations of prior art references.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully petitioned for institution against The Noco Company's patent covering portable jump starter apparatuses. The Board found that the prior art presented in the petition was not substantially the same as what was before the Office during prosecution, satisfying the Advanced Bionics framework. This allows the case to proceed to substantive review on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding biometric authentication claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over Burger and Robinson.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in the IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding hybrid device technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) across multiple claims. This decision validates Google's position that the challenged patent is anticipated by prior art combinations.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Proxense, LLC's patent (10073960). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly regarding device authentication and secure memory.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB that its biometric authentication claims were not obvious over prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenge targets core P2P networking and video streaming claims against THROUGHTEK CO., LTD.'s patent.
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.