Nathan A. Engels
39 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
39 cases indexed | Page 1 of 2
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings without a final written decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya jointly moved to end multiple IPRs covering patent 11,710,473. The PTAB granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled eight IPRs. The Board terminated the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Staton Techiya regarding U.S. Patent 11,610,587, focusing on audio management and sonic signature detection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,218,995. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Samsung's patent claims against Advanced Coding Technologies over video compression technology. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently explained how prior art combined to teach key claimed elements, leading to institution on all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully challenged four claims of Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC's patent (10218995) in the PTAB IPR proceeding. The Board found that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding gesture recognition technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Ahn and Chaudhri for Claim 2.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge 91 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB, citing excessive and unconcise parallel petition filings.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge nine claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited excessive parallel filings and lack of conciseness in arguments as the reason for denying institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s motion to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was granted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over Ahn and Chaudhri for numerous claims related to gesture recognition and user interface transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references Ahn and Chaudhri.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Smith Interface Technologies' patent, citing the need for judicial efficiency despite the complex claim structure. The Board determined that only three of seven concurrent petitions were justified.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to graphical user interfaces and touch screen manipulation. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge a patent from Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board utilized its discretion to deny institution because this petition was ranked last among seven parallel challenges.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent 10656755. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 claims challenged).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and ST CasesTech entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without a final decision. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's touch screen patent (10936114). The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds across multiple claims using four prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that numerous claims in Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent were obvious over various prior art combinations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds presented, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung, its U.S. affiliate, and Harman jointly moved to terminate their IPRs against Staton Techiya’s patents. The PTAB granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing challenged Hangzhou ZH Tech's patent (11736855) in PGR, alleging obviousness and indefiniteness across 19 claims. The Board instituted the petition, finding a likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable based on prior art combinations.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
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.