Matthew S. Meyers
46 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
46 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art reference Kim. The Board concluded that the synthetic rubber construction of Kim's golf shoe supports the existence of the claimed slopes, thereby establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims of Athalonz unpatentable as obvious over prior art (Kim). The Board adopted a construction that allowed the petitioner (Under Armour) to satisfy claim limitations by measuring heights relative to the sole's bottom surface.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eleven challenged claims unpatentable. The core finding was that the claimed athletic shoe design was obvious over prior art references (Kim and De Obaldia).
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features were obvious in light of prior art references, particularly Won and Norton.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla successfully navigated the PTAB's discretionary denial hurdles, leading to the institution of its IPR challenge against Graphite Charging Company LLC. The Board found that Tesla demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Wang and Cooley.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found that combinations of prior art references rendered multiple claims obvious or anticipated.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding patent 10478030, which covers surface cleaning apparatus. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims (1-13) based on prior art references including Peter, Neroni, and Butler.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully had its patent (No. 11,389,038 B2) instituted in an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc., overcoming initial challenges regarding obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Dyson across all asserted claims (1-15), moving the dispute toward trial.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully instituted an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent (10080472) covering vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja's IPR challenge against Dyson regarding hair styling attachments was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim based on obviousness over prior art references.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron's patent (11910984) covering surface cleaning apparatus. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness based on Dimbylow and Howes.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s vacuum cleaner patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that Dyson adequately demonstrated a motivation to combine prior art references for several claimed features, leading to institution on 13 claims.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB institution of IPR2025-00141, filed by Skechers against Nike, moves forward to challenge the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing after vacating an initial discretionary denial.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Skechers against Nike, finding the claims lacked reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'article of footwear,' which was critical to the denial.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers' IPR challenge against Nike regarding knit textile footwear was denied by the PTAB. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, despite adopting the patent owner's claim construction for 'article of footwear.'
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.
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.