McNamara
124 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
124 cases indexed | Page 2 of 5
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB remand decision held that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximetry patent are unpatentable, applying 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved the obviousness of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against WHOOP resulted in the Board finding all 23 claims of the wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable under obviousness. The decision affirmed the petitioner’s claim construction and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Google’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s speech‑interface patent was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the asserted obviousness grounds.
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.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding claims 1, 2, 7 and 15‑23 unpatentable while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a partial victory over Omni MedSci's wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while leaving 11 claims intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple successfully invalidated Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent in a final PTAB decision, finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The Board affirmed claim constructions and applied the petitioner’s alternative argument on the combination of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple successfully challenged Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent. The PTAB affirmed the claim construction and held all 23 claims obvious over prior art. No further briefing was authorized.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed on 12 of the 23 challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, finding them obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The remaining claims were left unpatentable pending further proof.
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 won a PTAB IPR against Omni MedSci, finding 12 of the 23 challenged claims of the 10,517,484 B2 wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
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’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health monitoring patent concluded with the Board finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The decision affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object” and rejected the need for further briefing.
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 succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent resulted in all nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s proximity‑based coupon patent in IPR2020‑00932. The Board held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding them anticipated or obvious over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google won an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, finding all 13 challenged claims of the ’736 patent unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness over prior art Eagle (and Eagle + Mgrdechian).
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’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of 22 challenged claims unpatentable, leaving only claims 37 and 43 intact.
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.