George R. Hoskins
46 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
46 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Fujikawa, Kang, and Ikeguchi.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Dialect LLC's patent, challenging claims related to Natural Language Processing and Conversational AI. The Board found that prior art disclosure regarding context stack synchronization was sufficient to warrant further review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art (Coffman, Kennewick, Ross). The Board agreed with the Patent Owner that the prior art disclosures were too high-level to support the combination claimed.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent on conversational AI was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Ronning.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found that claims 1-7, 12-17, and 19-23 were unpatentable over prior art (Coffman/Kennewick/Lee) based on obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that 'synchronize' only requires updating context information without duplicating entry order.
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.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of Inter Partes Review for Skechers against Nike regarding a footwear patent (9730484). The Board determined that Skechers met the threshold by showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references like Dua and Hong.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
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 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.
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.