Jason W. Melvin
63 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
63 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before a trial was instituted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker Inc. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC settled their inter partes review disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPRs. The settlement covered three patents and the agreements were treated as confidential business information.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR before the Board could institute a trial, and the settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 9706500. The review will examine claims related to transmit power control in wireless networks.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures settled their inter partes review disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures reached a settlement that terminated three inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties' motions to dismiss and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial, leading the Board to terminate the three IPRs. The settlement agreements were treated as confidential business information.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB denied SAP's request to institute IPR against Cyandia's patent (8751948), citing copending district court litigation in Texas. The Board determined the overlapping issues made IPR redundant.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,262,864 before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to dismissal of the proceedings.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,912,257, leading the PTAB to dismiss the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,191,648 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art combination with Neiss supported the modifications to the patented system, particularly regarding route handling and iterative energy calculation. Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 were found invalid.
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.