Garth D. Baer
66 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
66 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB issued an errata to correct a grammatical mistake in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685. The correction clarifies the Board’s language about Hufsmith’s teaching on detecting sensitive data.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board preliminarily agreed with Wiz's claim construction arguments regarding snapshot analysis and API usage based on prior art references.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Nearmap US against Eagle View Technologies regarding a property database patent (10671648). The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to provide a detailed, non-bare-quotation explanation linking prior art disclosures to the challenged claims.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Board found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known OLED elements, such as specific dopants or encapsulation layers, would have been routine and predictable to a skilled artisan.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references in Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, specifically regarding dopants and encapsulation methods.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision was granted for the petitioner VusionGroup SA against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, covering object detection and video surveillance systems. The Board found that the prior art reference Bedros disclosed or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision allows the petitioner to proceed with invalidity challenges based on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully had its IPR petition instituted against Pictiva Displays International Limited regarding OLED technology claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on obviousness over prior art 'Ma'.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in proving unpatentability. The claims related to graphical user interfaces (GUI) were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the petition challenging patent 9003315, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate obviousness against the claims. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (LiTL LLC), concluding that prior art combinations did not teach the specific content filtering required by the patent.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied Dell, HP, and Asus’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision not to institute an IPR on patent 9,563,229. The Board concluded the petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the accelerometer claim limitations.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Dell and other companies against LiTL LLC's patent for display configurations in hinged devices. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically regarding mode switching using an accelerometer.
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.