Linda E. Horner
34 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
34 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components jointly moved to terminate two IPRs after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability for claims 5-7 and 16-19. The Board found that the prior art references failed to teach or suggest the claimed 'closure retention mechanism' with sufficient structural identity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The Board upheld the validity of Oura Health's smart ring patent against Samsung Electronics in a Final Written Decision. The Panel found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art combining physical activity monitoring and wearable input devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Oura Health's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, arguing obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB found the vast majority of the grounds unpersuasive, but ultimately cancelled two dependent claims (17 and 18) under § 112(d).
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual was publicly accessible in 2016, establishing it as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). This finding allows American Axle & Manufacturing to challenge all 18 claims of Neapco Components' patent.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle & Manufacturing successfully petitioned to challenge the patentability of Neapco Components' propeller shaft joint assembly claims before the PTAB. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
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.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Milestone Entertainment's patent (11335164) covering electronic game systems and prizing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, primarily based on obviousness over prior art references like Kelly.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
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.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung’s post‑grant review of Oura’s smart‑ring patent (U.S. 11,874,702) was denied. The Board held that none of the 17 claims were obvious over the cited prior art, affirming the patent’s validity.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against AfterWords, Inc.'s patent (10430811) based on anticipation grounds (§ 102). The Board found sufficient support in prior art references Douglas and Ganesh for all challenged claims, leading to the institution of the case.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied Decent Espresso International Ltd.'s IPR challenge against DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC's infused beverage brewing assembly patent. The Board rejected the petitioner's claim construction of 'resulting solvent valve,' upholding the single-valve interpretation required by the patent owner.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
The PTAB denied TROVE BRANDS' request to institute IPR against CamelBak Products regarding drinkware cap mechanisms. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over combinations of prior art references like Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR petition against CamelBak Products regarding mouthpiece and cap assemblies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that petitioner failed to meet the statutory threshold for institution, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a beverage brewing system patent (11957271), finding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the Board's determination that key prior art, Buttiker, was not applicable.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
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.