Hoffman
41 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
41 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung's IPR petition against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board determined that the proximity to a parallel district court trial date weighed heavily in favor of discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition due to concerns over parallel district court litigation and duplicative efforts. The Board found that the central technical issue remained identical, despite petitioner concessions regarding trial timing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics sought to invalidate Secure Wi-Fi LLC's patent (9717005) via IPR, alleging obviousness in Wi-Fi network security claims. The PTAB denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), finding that factors weighed against proceeding despite the petitioner's arguments.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR against Daingean Technologies' patent, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its sole prior art reference (R2-1702708) was a publicly accessible printed publication.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.
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.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB determined that all 20 challenged claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding obviousness over combinations of Suga and Gorsuch. The Board successfully rejected the Patent Owner's attempts to narrow key claim terms, upholding the Petitioner's broad interpretation of functional language.
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.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility LLC failed to secure institution in an IPR against Daingean Technologies regarding 5G cellular communications claims. The Board denied the petition because AT&T could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability, particularly concerning specific claim constructions related to RNTI and information types.
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.