Judge Profile

Sean P. O’Hanlon

118 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

118 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4

patent instituted

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00630

Tesla Inc.'s IPR against iQar Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, allowing claims related to vehicle power management logic to proceed to trial. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.

patent instituted

United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.

· IPR2024-00779

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.

patent instituted

Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC

· IPR2024-01030

Luxottica successfully petitioned to institute IPR against E-Vision Optics regarding eyewear technology, overcoming initial procedural hurdles. The Board found that Petitioner adequately established a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation for key claims based on prior art references.

patent instituted

Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC

· IPR2024-01069

Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent (10613355). The Board found that Luxottica demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103) across all 21 challenged claims.

patent instituted

Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC

· IPR2024-01070

Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned for institution against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding patent 8801174, which covers smart eyeglasses technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

patent instituted

Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC

· IPR2024-01071

Luxottica successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against E-Vision Optics regarding claims in the '541 patent, overcoming arguments related to parallel litigation and statutory bars. The Board found that the Petitioner provided sufficient mitigation via a Sotera stipulation, allowing the obviousness challenge to proceed.

patent instituted

Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC

· IPR2024-01072

Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.

patent instituted

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.

patent instituted

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01381

CMS Cepcor successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Sandvik's gyratory crusher patent (11,014,090 B2), setting the stage for a complex obviousness trial involving three prior art references.

patent instituted

CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.

· IPR2024-01380

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for U.S. Patent 9,827,568, challenging claims related to gyratory crushers. CMS Cepcor successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the patent is obvious over prior art references.

patent instituted

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00031

Liberty Energy successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Well Services' smart hydraulic fracturing patent, leading to institution for all 19 claims. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references like Norris disclose key elements of the system.

patent instituted

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00139

The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-10 of U.S. Well Services' patent '878, focusing on hydraulic fracturing systems and power distribution. The Board found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a rational basis for combining multiple prior art references to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent instituted

Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00216

The PTAB granted institution for Luxottica against E-Vision's electronic eyewear patent (11487138), finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness grounds using prior art like Thiel and Gruber.

patent instituted

Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC

· IPR2025-00559

Anthony Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that ControlTec's patent claims are obvious over prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR and a trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on analogous teachings in refrigeration equipment patents.

patent terminated or settled

Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.

· IPR2024-00621

Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.

patent terminated or settled

Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC

· IPR2024-01278

Bitsgap and other crypto platforms settled their IPR dispute with Intercurrency Software, leading the PTAB to dismiss the challenges to patent 10,776,863.

patent terminated or settled

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00794

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems jointly moved to terminate IPR2020-01608 concerning patent 8,082,289 B2 after the Board had instituted the review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a final written decision.

patent terminated or settled

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00794

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,140,612 B2.

patent terminated or settled

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00795

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,676,877 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.

patent terminated or settled

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00862

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00895

The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00895

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00894

Apple’s IPR petition was granted, instituting review of all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G paging patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art You, Liu, and Mallick.

patent terminated or settled

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01181

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’736 patent, with the Board finding all 13 challenged claims unpatentable for lack of novelty and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01183

Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent resulted in all nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01183

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent terminated or settled

Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01446

Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

The PTAB held that five claims of the ’592 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange were obvious over Perttila and Insolia, rendering them unpatentable, while four other claims were upheld.

patent denied

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00098

Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑based wireless communication patent was denied, leaving the patent intact. The Board found the prior‑art arguments insufficiently particularized.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →