Jon M. Jurgovan
168 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
168 cases indexed | Page 3 of 6
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully initiated an IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent (9031845) covering natural language speech processing in vehicles. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references like Coffman, Julia, and Cooper.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent, arguing that Claim 12 is obvious over a combination of prior art references. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine the teachings of Kennewick and Ross for trial on merits.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenged DexCom's CGM patents in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art combining Yarger and Love. The Board granted institution after claim construction, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DexCom's CGM patent (9119528) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Brauker. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims, leading to institution.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom for patent infringement related to remote patient monitoring and glucose technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, specifically finding that prior art combinations rendered key claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom regarding claims related to remote patient monitoring and glucose management. The PTAB found sufficient evidence that the petitioner met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds (102 and 103).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against DexCom, Inc.'s glucose monitoring patent (11020031). The Board found sufficient evidence for trial on 22 claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art from Zhang and Shin.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully secured institutional status in an IPR against DexCom, Inc., regarding continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art references anticipate or render obvious key claims related to transcutaneous sensors and drift profiles.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge SherryWear's apparel patent, leading the Board to institute proceedings on obviousness grounds. The decision focuses on whether combinations of prior art references teach or suggest the claimed design elements in intimate apparel.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge SherryWear's bra design patent (9808036) on grounds of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision found that Nike had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted claims, leading to trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., asserting that several claims related to RF switches and semiconductor devices are unpatentable. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103) over prior art references Huang and Seshimo.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute's patent claims (1-14) for obviousness over prior art related to Wi-Fi signaling standards. The PTAB found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting the IPR on all 14 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Wilus Institute's patent 11716171, challenging claims 1-16 based on obviousness over Kim and Chu/Choi. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung could prove unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
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.