Grace Karaffa Obermann
70 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
70 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
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.
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.
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.
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).
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. failed to institute an IPR against California Institute of Technology et al.'s patent covering multiplexed analyte detection. The Board found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient support for key disclosures in the asserted prior art (Saxonov) during the initial petition phase.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.'s IPR challenge against California Institute of Technology et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient support for key prior art disclosures in Saxonov from the provisional application, leading to a failure to establish unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 22 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’481 patent are obvious over prior art and thus unpatentable. Monolithic Power Systems successfully defended its position, while Greenthread’s privity and licensing arguments were rejected.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully challenged Greenthread’s U.S. Pat. 10,510,842, proving all asserted claims obvious over prior‑art references. The Board affirmed the petition, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that Monolithic Power Systems proved all challenged claims of Greenthread’s 11,316,014 patent obvious over Kawagoe, Onoda and Nishizawa, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The Board instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's petition covering claims 1‑5 of patent 8,968,924 and granted Samsung’s motion to join an existing IPR, terminating the separate proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The PTAB held that none of the eight claims were obvious over the cited prior art, leaving the patent fully intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed on 12 of the 23 challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, finding them obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The remaining claims were left unpatentable pending further proof.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims of the ’299 wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health monitoring patent concluded with the Board finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The decision affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object” and rejected the need for further briefing.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved the obviousness of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
In IPR2024‑01094, the PTAB held claims 1,2,6,8‑14 of Pictiva’s OLED patent unpatentable over the Ma reference, while claims 3‑4 were upheld. The decision hinged on obviousness of joint vaporization and metal‑complex coordination.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB previously denied institution of IPR against Bunge Loders Croklaan USA regarding a vegetable fat composition patent. The Board found that Cargill’s arguments relied on hindsight bias, specifically in selecting prior art examples to meet claimed triglyceride ranges.
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.