Gregg I. Anderson
55 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
55 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology Group settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and treat the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent (9887838). The Board found that MediaTek presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) across all 24 claimed claims.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenge against Cellspin Soft's patent (11234121), asserting obviousness over multiple prior art references. Petitioners, including LifeScan and Senseonics, successfully argued that the claims were rendered obvious by combinations of existing wireless technology standards and academic publications.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims related to video compression and coding. The Board found that prior art references like Karczewicz and Frojdh, combined with H.263 standards, teach the claimed 'skip coding mode.'
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenged Nokia's video coding patent (7532808) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Karczewicz and Frojdh. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, supporting Amazon’s position on key skip coding mode limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The Board issued a final decision finding that all challenged claims (19) were unpatentable. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness and anticipation based on combining prior art references in the field of SOI switching circuits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC regarding semiconductor fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board adopted a broad claim construction, defining 'current state' to include both online and offline device states, which facilitated the finding of obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
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.