Jennifer S. Bisk
6 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
6 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The denial focused on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references, particularly regarding specific technical features like webserver functionality.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.
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.