Ogden
86 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
86 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled four inter partes review proceedings before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four related IPRs before any trial was instituted.
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.
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.
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.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The patent relates to random access procedures in LTE/5G apparatuses and involved significant claim construction regarding power ramping functions.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 7 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 unpatentable. The decision hinged on the Petitioner's successful anticipation challenge over the prior art reference Komata.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'virtual detent,' defining it as vibrotactile feedback that simulates mechanical resistance, and found anticipation in Rosenberg I for all claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,546 unpatentable. The decision relied on the Petitioner's uncontested arguments that prior art references (Rosenberg and Brock) anticipated or rendered obvious the patent claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims of the '738 patent unpatentable under both 102 and 103. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for "haptic effect," allowing for combined or modified effects, which was critical to the petitioner's success.
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.'
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907 B2 unpatentable under both § 102 and § 103. The Board rejected the patent owner's narrow claim constructions, finding them inconsistent with intrinsic evidence, and concluded that prior art references (Goldenberg, Rosenberg) anticipated or rendered the claims obvious.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
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.'
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
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.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent (9,116,546), asserting that the haptic feedback claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on Claim 1 based on Rosenberg.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility LLC failed to secure institution in an IPR against Daingean Technologies regarding 5G cellular communications claims. The Board denied the petition because AT&T could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability, particularly concerning specific claim constructions related to RNTI and information types.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent covering haptic feedback systems. The Board found sufficient persuasive evidence that Valve could prevail on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Pratt and Ku.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR against Daingean Technologies' patent, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its sole prior art reference (R2-1702708) was a publicly accessible printed publication.
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.