Scott A. Daniels
55 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
55 cases indexed | Page 2 of 2
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent, challenging 17 claims based on obviousness over prior art including Yeo and TS36.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR physical layer procedures. The Board found that various 3GPP technical specifications collectively teach the claimed inventions, leading to institution on grounds of obviousness and anticipation.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent (11,108,639) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims related to wireless scheduling mechanisms are unpatentable over combinations of Fakoorian-1 and Takahashi. This sets up a major IP battle regarding advanced cellular technology standards.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter‑partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a confidential settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00898 covering patent 10,951,271. The Board granted the motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Intellectual Ventures II LLC were likely unpatentable based on prior art references Matsushima and Yu/Miyazaki. The Board granted institution, moving the dispute toward trial over key terms like 'integration time' in dynamic range camera technology.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully moved forward in its IPR against ControlTec, LLC's patent (7421847), leading to institution on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding the prior art reference 'Carter' analogous to condensation control in refrigerated cases.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple Inc. successfully requested institution of an IPR against Ziklag IP LLC's patent, asserting that claims are obvious over prior art references Yurt and Logan. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam's patent 10,462,767, challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness over prior art standards like Yeo and TS36.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB found 103 of the 105 claims of Simpson Strong‑Tie’s fire‑wall hanger patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Yamaguchi, Bundy, Adams and Gilb ’416 references. Claims 38 and 91 were left intact. The Board adopted petitioner‑proposed claim constructions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
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.