Jameson Lee
87 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
87 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. against CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.'s patent 11,410,355, finding that the challenger failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, which the Board approved and treated the settlement as confidential business information.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin and patent owner Slyde Analytics settled their dispute in IPR2024-00006, resulting in Garmin's termination from the proceeding. The Board treated the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found that claims 1-6 and 9-13 were unpatentable over Kaplan and Bryant under 35 U.S.C. § 103, while rejecting the challenge to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 due to insufficient evidence of prior art accessibility. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'user profile,' aligning with district court findings.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-00382 after Datavant and Vigilytics reached a settlement, keeping the agreement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Digital Media Technology Holdings regarding patent 7574725. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for key terms like 'distributing' and 'exhibiting,' favoring the Petitioner’s interpretation over the Patent Owner’s narrow industry definitions. This sets a favorable precedent for interpreting media technology claims broadly in PTAB proceedings.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness (103), specifically concluding that prior art references taught every element of Independent Claim 1. The Board also adopted broad claim constructions, rejecting narrow interpretations proposed by the Patent Owner regarding terms like 'Exhibitor' and 'Distribution'.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
LENOVO failed its IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II's patent covering integrated circuit calibration, as the Board found Petitioner could not overcome key limitations of the claims using prior art. The denial centered on insufficient accounting for a three-dimensional 'valid operation range.'
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's biometric fraud detection patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone and Hoyos. This decision sets the stage for a trial focusing on how existing financial security methods could be combined to achieve the claimed results.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Carbyne Biometrics' patent (9972010), challenging numerous claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, allowing the case to proceed to patentability analysis.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 of the '886 patent are unpatentable. The Board concluded that the claimed fraud detection methods were obvious over combinations of prior art references including Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the combination of prior art references Stone and Hoyos. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner Apple Inc.'s arguments that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these systems for improved fraud resistance in electronic transactions.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
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.