Sean P. O’Hanlon
118 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
118 cases indexed | Page 4 of 4
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art combination with Neiss supported the modifications to the patented system, particularly regarding route handling and iterative energy calculation. Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 were found invalid.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
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.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
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.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The decision hinged on the Petitioner successfully demonstrating that prior art (Koebler) disclosed all elements of the claimed invention, while also clarifying claim terms regarding sensor data analysis.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
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.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
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.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Curry and Rabu, rendered the claimed mobile device accident detection methods obvious to a POSITA.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully instituted an IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering power management/cruise control systems, asserting obviousness over all challenged claims (1-20). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds that combining prior art references like Hongo and Obradovich renders the claimed technology obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for rehearing on the Final Written Decision, upholding the finding that claims 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,882,399 are unpatentable over Newstrom et al. The Board found Petitioner failed to adequately prove the database was remote.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued an Institution Decision for IPR2024-00378, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner challenged claims 1-15 of the '930 patent related to trading platforms and currency conversion.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent 10062107, challenging claims 19-36 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner regarding at least one challenged claim, advancing the dispute into the trial phase.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (10062107) on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding Claim 1, leading to the institution of all 18 claims at issue.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding claims 19-36 unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg was sufficient to teach key limitations in electronic trading/forex methods.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent 10,829,002, challenging claims related to vehicle destination prediction and power management.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of Kudo-325 and Kudo-066. The petitioner successfully argued that the prior art combination teaches or suggests the necessary elements for destination prediction and power management in vehicles. This final decision affirms the obviousness rejection against iQar Inc.'s 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.