Kara L. Szpondowski
109 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
109 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found obviousness over single and combined prior art references (Gage/Mitchell) for original claims, and also determined substitute claims failed both 103 and 101 standards.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB found that claims 12-21 of patent 8249932 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining prior art references, specifically Amidon and Walsh, to teach the claimed targeted advertising system in situational networks.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's petition to join the Samsung IPR, ruling that the challenges were substantively identical to existing filings. The Board applied General Plastic factors, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing and denying institution based on prior filing history and potential road-mapping concerns.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc., successfully petitioned for institution in a high-stakes IPR against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s digital credentialing patent (9251531). The Board adopted key claim constructions favorable to the Petitioner and found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on prior art references.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc.'s IPR petition against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s patent was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The Board adopted key claim constructions, including defining 'OVER file' to encompass tokens and NFC interactions for 'scan,' confirming sufficient basis for unpatentability arguments.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that Visa, Inc.'s claims were likely obvious over prior art references including Oborne and Neafsey. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'scan,' leading to the institution of 17 claims under Section 103.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Sitnet's patent 8249932, with the PTAB finding a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'situational network,' setting the stage for trial.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Sitnet, LLC's '454 patent. The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Amidon and Wong/Gogic, advancing the dispute to trial.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Sitnet's patent 9877345. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard for obviousness over multiple prior art references (Gage, Mitchell, Shida).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Sitnet's patent (11470682) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board granted institution, allowing Meta to proceed with its IPR challenge against claims 1-20.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Sitnet LLC's patent 8249932, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in its IPR against XR Communications LLC. The challenge focused on whether multi-beam directed signal systems were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references Agee and Butler.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against WellcomeMat, LLC's patent (8307286) concerning online video/real estate marketing. The Board found that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard despite prior district court litigation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Iarnach Technologies Limited's patent (9806892) on grounds of obviousness in passive optical networks (PON). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims based on combinations of prior art references.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Aylo Freesites Ltd in challenging WellcomeMat's patentability. The challenge focused on claim 17, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in this IPR, challenging all 20 claims of Netlist's patent (11880319) based on obviousness and anticipation. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over various combinations of prior art, including Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim. This decision sets a strong precedent for challenging memory module initialization claims using industry standards and technical literature.
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047 for a hat holder system. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, including anticipation by KR ’458.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
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.