McNamara
80 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
80 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Acorn’s ’395 patent succeeded on eight of the 26 claims, finding claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent on proximity‑based wireless communication, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s ’842 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski as prior art to establish anticipation and obviousness. The decision underscores the vulnerability of proximity‑based transaction patents.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB instituted the review and ultimately held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Swartz references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’736 patent, with the Board finding all 13 challenged claims unpatentable for lack of novelty and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent were obvious over Perttila and Insolia and thus unpatentable, while claims 25, 26, 28, 29 remained patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the parties.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based device‑identification patent was denied. The Board found the petition lacked sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the asserted claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, leading the PTAB to find all eight claims of the challenged patent unpatentable. The Board held that the prior‑art references Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious each claim limitation.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged U.S. Patent 11,687,971, a proximity‑based wireless communication system, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the Eagle reference anticipates and renders obvious each claim limitation.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless transaction patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims unpatentable, while two claims remained upheld.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to challenge Monarch Networking Solutions' patent on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings against claims 1 and 5-8.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
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.