Hoffman
41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
41 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.
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.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
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.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
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.