MICHAEL G. McMANUS
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics and Redstone Logics settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,253,925 before a trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR on 23 claims of EVONIK's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least Claim 1 would be obvious over Ungerank and Scholz. The Board rejected arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully had its IPR petition instituted against Pictiva Displays International Limited regarding OLED technology claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on obviousness over prior art 'Ma'.
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.