John F. Horvath
31 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
31 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge succeeded, finding all of the asserted claims of Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2025-00062. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding before any institution decision and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation successfully challenged InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds regarding anticipation and obviousness. This institution decision keeps the dispute alive for further review.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon's IPR petition against NL GIKEN regarding a TV viewing experience patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on all 16 challenged claims, focusing heavily on obviousness over Cooper and Slotznick.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully secured institution at the PTAB against MOSAID Technologies regarding integrated circuit patents related to power management. The Board accepted Petitioner's showing of reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable over prior art references, including Takahashi and Mizuno.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to provide a proper claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Additionally, the Board found that key 'component' terms functioned as means-plus-function limitations lacking cognizable structure in the patent specification.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
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.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.
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.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,945,885, leading to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement while denying its separation from the IPR files.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging all 64 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that MediaTek demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by combining prior art references Nowka and Borkar in the field of integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR challenge against MOSAID regarding power management technology. Despite a dissenting judge arguing for reasonable likelihood based on Nowka and Borkar, the Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or intrinsic support for its obviousness theories.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s 9,350,349 patent covering power islands with plural sleep transistors. The Board found MediaTek’s arguments insufficient and no abuse of discretion.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references related to integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID's patent 8253438. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing obviousness over prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno, particularly regarding the 'plurality of power islands' limitation.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
Vivitro Labs and the patent owner settled their IPR dispute over a biomedical device patent, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
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.