John D. Hamann
81 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
81 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their disputes, leading to the joint termination of sixteen IPRs covering laser‑beam‑steering patents. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and confidentiality protections.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled 16 inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully obtained a PTAB institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s massive‑MIMO patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑20 based on Liu and Jover references and declined discretionary denial despite related district court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that U.S. Patent No. 7,325,140 B2 is unpatentable due to obviousness over prior art references. Specifically, the combination of Neufeld and Syvanne renders claims 11 and 12 obvious, while other combinations involving IPMI render multiple claims invalid.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable over prior art references Chang and Chang II based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's definition of POSITA and corrected a scrivener's error in claim 13, replacing 'hub' with 'host'.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that 33 out of 37 challenged claims were unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. Key findings included the rejection of Petitioner's argument regarding 'hermetically sealed' meaning waterproof, and successful challenges using multiple prior art combinations like Howell-596/Howell-833/Blum-741.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims of the electronic eyewear system unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as Howell-719 and Sikonowiz, rendered the claimed invention obvious across various claim sets.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for a majority of challenged claims (Claims 1–9 and 12–19) based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board relied heavily on prior art references, notably Brunton, to establish these findings in the field of smart eyeglasses electronics integration.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combinations of prior art references, such as Howell-596 and Howell-158, rendered the claimed features in smart eyeglasses obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 26 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features of smart eyewear were taught by combinations of prior art references, including Jannard, Rosenblatt, Chen, and Nielsen. This final decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the wearable technology space.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo successfully challenged several claims of Intellectual Ventures II's patent (8474016) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute on all challenged claims. The Board found strong evidence that prior art references like Neufeld and PCI Bridge Spec taught or rendered obvious various limitations of the asserted claims.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica successfully petitioned to institute IPR against E-Vision Optics regarding eyewear technology, overcoming initial procedural hurdles. The Board found that Petitioner adequately established a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation for key claims based on prior art references.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA successfully petitioned to have Bell Northern Research's wireless communication patents instituted for obviousness under § 103. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, including Jones and 802.11a, renders multiple claims unpatentable. This institution decision sets a strong precedent regarding OFDM technology in wireless communications.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent (10613355). The Board found that Luxottica demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103) across all 21 challenged claims.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned for institution against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding patent 8801174, which covers smart eyeglasses technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
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.