John F. Horvath
49 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
49 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.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’533 wearable physiological measurement patent were unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent failed; all asserted claims were found obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple succeeded in invalidating Omni MedSci's wearable physiological measurement patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims obvious over prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR of Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable under §103, based on obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘299 patent was decided with all challenged claims (7, 10‑14) found 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 IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims of the ’299 wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
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 resulted in the Board finding all six challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering wearable optical sensing.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent resulted in all challenged claims being held unpatentable. The Board found the claims obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s inter‑partes review of Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s petition succeeded; the PTAB held all challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci, finding claims 7 and 10‑14 of the ’299 patent unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
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.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against InterDigital's patent 8737933, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Microsoft. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to secure discretionary denial, moving the case to the merits phase.
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.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to properly construe means-plus-function claim terms under Rule 104(b)(3).
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 and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,051,306, leading the PTAB to terminate four related inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreement was treated as business‑confidential 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.
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.