Kevin C. Trock
82 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
82 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417, leading the PTAB to find all fifteen claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the Perego disclosure and JEDEC DDR2 standards.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims unpatentable by obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining various prior art references—including Chinn, Takahashi, and Kim—would render the claimed features obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found that claims 1-6 and 9-13 were unpatentable over Kaplan and Bryant under 35 U.S.C. § 103, while rejecting the challenge to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 due to insufficient evidence of prior art accessibility. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'user profile,' aligning with district court findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
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.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding the Petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood standard due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully petitioned to institute trial on several claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent regarding USB Hub/Bridge Systems, overcoming initial objections from the Patent Owner. The Board adopted a judicial correction of Claim 13, revising 'hub' to 'host', which significantly shaped the scope of the dispute.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Motorola Solutions against STA Group regarding patent 9319852. The Board found that the Petitioner met its burden by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s patent claims related to camera control systems. The Board declined discretionary denial despite parallel district court litigation because the petitioner agreed not to assert the same grounds there.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Samsung against Maxell regarding video management systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Horn and Baumgartner. This moves the case into substantive examination on obviousness grounds.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Maxell's patent 11017815. The Board found that Samsung presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, overcoming prior art challenges based on combinations of references like Horn and Baumgartner.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung successfully secured institution in this IPR against Maxell, challenging numerous claims of patent 11445241. The Board found sufficient evidence regarding prior art combinations involving N93, Dua, and Herle. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against patent 10,129,590, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that multiple combinations of prior art references—including N93 and various technical specifications—met the criteria for institution.
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.