Georgianna W. Braden
55 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
55 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Axion Biosystems successfully navigated the Institution Decision phase in its IPR against Agilent Technologies, leading to the trial of key claims. The Board declined to deny institution, allowing the dispute over cell monitoring and impedance analysis technology to proceed to litigation.
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones. The Board concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate non-hindsight motivation for combining the references or making the necessary technical modifications, citing lack of support for millisecond time resolution.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of patent 9098855 against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on anticipation and obviousness grounds, primarily citing prior art from Deaton. This decision allows Quotient to proceed with challenging key claims related to coupon redemption networks.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Quotient Technology against Intelligent Clearing Network regarding patent 10846729. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Aggarwal and Deaton.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for Quotient Technology's IPR against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc.'s coupon redemption patent (9070133). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success over Paul and Brown, despite rejecting the petitioner's narrow claim construction.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
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.
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.
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.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully petitioned IPR against Tecan Genomics' NGS patent (US 10036012), showing a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Meyer) anticipates claims. The Board granted institution, setting the stage for a full trial on all 22 challenged claims.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB upheld the patent against IPR challenges related to NGS target enrichment. The Board clarified that 'enrichment' requires an increased proportion of the sequence relative to others, not just a raw increase in fragment count. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof on unpatentability.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00705 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel, Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Etison LLC's website creation patent. The denial was based on the parallel District Court finding that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel's IPR against ClickFunnels, citing the efficiency of the patent system. The denial was based on a parallel District Court finding that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.