Neil T. Powell
123 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
123 cases indexed | Page 3 of 5
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute inter partes review of Piranha Media’s eSports patent, finding the petition failed the compelling merits standard. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against a peer‑to‑peer gaming patent, finding the petition failed the compelling‑merits test. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not teach key claim limitations, resulting in a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related crypto‑trading entities settled their dispute with Intercurrency Software, resulting in the Board terminating four IPRs before trial. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
The PTAB found that all challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Llop '126 and Sichuan. The Board determined there was a clear motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung’s post‑grant review of Oura’s smart‑ring patent (U.S. 11,874,702) was denied. The Board held that none of the 17 claims were obvious over the cited prior art, affirming the patent’s validity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Ouraring's patent (11874702) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board determined that the challenges based on prior art met the institutional threshold for trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied a Post-Grant Review filed by Samsung against Oura Health's patent '701 because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a high-stakes IPR concerning wearable biosensor technology, specifically smart rings. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102) to proceed with trial on 17 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims. This denial was based on procedural rules regarding pre-institution claim disclaimer.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR challenge against Oura Health's '859 Patent. The Board found that the second challenge, based on prior art including Schröder and Mestas, met the threshold for obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The Board upheld the validity of Oura Health's smart ring patent against Samsung Electronics in a Final Written Decision. The Panel found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art combining physical activity monitoring and wearable input devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent (No. 11690512). The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, allowing the challenge to proceed despite neutral merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Oura Health because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Oura Health's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, arguing obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB found the vast majority of the grounds unpersuasive, but ultimately cancelled two dependent claims (17 and 18) under § 112(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent 8982109, challenging claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
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.