Scott B. Howard
75 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
75 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung and several major carriers settled their inter partes review of Headwater’s wireless patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent successfully challenged Intent IQ’s 7,861,260 patent covering targeted TV ads. The PTAB found all 152 claims unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior‑art hotspot and set‑top‑box technologies. The decision also adopted a specific claim construction for “contracted to display a TV ad.”
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
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.
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.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent covering claims 1‑24, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior‑art references such as Arai and Pelc. Discretionary factors, including a stay in a related district‑court case, led the Board to reject a denial request.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Kavo Dental Technologies (as represented by Dentsply Sirona) would prevail on at least one claim.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Lenovo and Motorola against Headwater Research, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings without a final written decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya jointly moved to end multiple IPRs covering patent 11,710,473. The PTAB granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s network‑stack API patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial factors and erred on claim construction. A termination would end the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent (9647918), citing procedural redundancy with a previously filed, higher-ranked petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Headwater, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged wireless device claims are unpatentable over Bennett and Vadde.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled eight IPRs. The Board terminated the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully instituted an IPR against Nokia regarding video compression standards, arguing that MPEG-1 teaches or suggests the claimed quantization methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success despite initial claim construction disputes over sequence vs. picture parameters.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven of the ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments, specifically using Whitehead as primary evidence for aggregation and content delivery systems.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding most claims (1-12 and 14-18) unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art. Claims 13 and 19-24 were found patentable, despite significant dispute over claim construction terms like 'media stream.'
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
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.