Ogden
86 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
86 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics sought to invalidate Secure Wi-Fi LLC's patent (9717005) via IPR, alleging obviousness in Wi-Fi network security claims. The PTAB denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), finding that factors weighed against proceeding despite the petitioner's arguments.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
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.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution in the IPR against Immersion Corporation's haptics patent (10627907). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references, particularly Goldenberg.
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.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR challenging patent 10,291,449 B2, before any trial was instituted.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted termination motions and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight IPRs before they were instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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.
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.
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.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 10,652,111. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.