Ogden
86 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
86 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,803,836. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the three inter partes review proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their dispute over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the related IPRs. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for OnePlus Technology against Pantech Wireless, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 10 challenged claims. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Zeira and Yi taught the necessary elements to overcome obviousness rejections.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 16 claims in a dispute involving Stratasys's 3D printing technology. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art, specifically Warren.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully instituted the IPR against Align Technology's dental appliance patent by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board found sufficient motivation in prior art references to combine them and support the claims under Section 103.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Haptic, Inc.'s patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel civil litigation and concerns over system efficiency.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their inter partes review disputes over patent 10,986,585, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement documents were ordered kept confidential.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's patent (9471074) in an IPR, arguing obviousness over Al-Shyoukh in view of Ivanov and Stanescu. The PTAB institution decision granted the petition, proceeding to trial on 18 claims.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB found that the claims of the voltage regulator are unpatentable under § 103 based on a combination of Al-Shyoukh and Ivanov. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of key terms, including finding 'gm enhanced' synonymous with 'gm boost.'
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR against Daingean Technologies Ltd., finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-4. The challenge centers on whether prior art (Lee et al. and Brismar et al.) anticipates or renders obvious the methods for managing System Information Blocks in wireless networks.
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.