Robert J. Weinschenk
30 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
30 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to challenge Monarch Networking Solutions' patent on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings against claims 1 and 5-8.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems successfully secured the institution of IPR against DeepSig's patent (11,018,704) over radio signal distortion correction claims, setting up a major technical dispute in cellular communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s attempt to invalidate Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the patent description sufficiently broad to cover video data samples, defeating the obviousness challenge over prior art references.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions LLC regarding packet switching claims (Claims 1 and 6). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references, including Wainner/Bocci and Kamite/Bocci.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla’s IPR against Autonomous Devices’ ’974 patent resulted in the Board finding claims 4 and 11 unpatentable and also striking the proposed substitute claims 21 and 24‑26, while leaving claims 5, 7 and other substitutes intact.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla successfully argued that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, leading to the Board's decision to institute IPR trial. The petitioner focused on combining spiking neural network techniques with autonomous robotic operation for improved efficiency and task specialization. This institution sets up a high-stakes technical battle regarding AI implementation in robotics.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions' patent 8451844, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to IPv6 transition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google's attempt to challenge Headwater Research's patent (8406733) was denied by the PTAB due to a parallel IPR proceeding already being active.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of Headwater Research's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding obviousness, leading to the institution of the case. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of wireless communication technology standards and prior art combinations.
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.