Frances L. Ippolito
64 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
64 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). Specifically, claims 11, 12, and 14–20 were found obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board also denied the Patent Owner's motion to amend regarding substitute claims 29-37, rejecting some for lack of enablement/utility.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Paul Poniatowski's patent were likely obvious over prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong). The Board granted institution of IPR proceedings, moving the dispute toward trial in the District Court.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims of Patent 8,270,578 B2 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found that prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong) taught the subject matter through obvious combinations.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp.'s IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the challenge of numerous claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with challenging key features related to vehicle profile management and cloud services.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Curry and Rabu, rendered the claimed mobile device accident detection methods obvious to a POSITA.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al., despite arguments from the patent owner that the disclosures were too general or lacked specific enablement. The Board found sufficient evidence to support anticipation and obviousness claims based on prior art Sung ’026.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Samsung's 8974270, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that combining prior art references renders multiple claims unpatentable.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent covering intra-oral scanning and 3D modeling. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over combinations of Zhang and Babayoff.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,076,391 B2. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims related to bite registration methods.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s patent (10152734), finding no evidence of obviousness or anticipation. The Board concluded that the prior art failed to teach a specific 'universal variable mapper' necessary for the claims.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep linking technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Belanger and Halevy.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against Metarail, Inc.'s patent 9633378, concerning data mapping technologies.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Metarail, Inc.'s patent on deep-linking and e-commerce technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued an Institution Decision for IPR2024-00378, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner challenged claims 1-15 of the '930 patent related to trading platforms and currency conversion.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent 10062107, challenging claims 19-36 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner regarding at least one challenged claim, advancing the dispute into the trial phase.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (10062107) on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding Claim 1, leading to the institution of all 18 claims at issue.
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.