Kevin C. Trock
82 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
82 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.
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.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully challenged NL Giken's patent (US 10880592) in the PTAB, leading to institution on claims 1-3 and 5. The petitioner argued that prior art references Walker and Chang rendered the claims obvious in the context of digital broadcasting systems.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against WSOU Investments regarding network protection claims (8982691). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding that prior art references inherently disclose key claim limitations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing the Fintiv factors and lack of compelling merits despite strong arguments regarding network optimization technology.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum for patent 11770313, citing the advanced scheduling and substantial investment in a parallel district court lawsuit.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet's attempt to invalidate Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent on network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Fortinet failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically Delco and Adams. This denial maintains the validity of key virtualization and firewall technology for Croga.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. faced denial in an IPR proceeding against Collision Communications, Inc., regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found no reasonable likelihood that Samsung could overcome the obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent (11223601), challenging all 16 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were sufficiently compelling, leading to a trial phase.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco and Croga Innovations jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a confidential settlement, and the Board granted the termination.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon and its affiliates settled an inter partes review against NL Giken’s patent 9,319,615. The Board terminated the proceeding, treating the settlement as confidential.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment regarding network performance patents. The Board cited the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline as a key factor favoring denial.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited regarding image processing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the patent's claims are unpatentable under obviousness over prior art references, moving the case toward substantive examination.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.