Sharon Fenick
110 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
110 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci, finding claims 7 and 10‑14 of the ’299 patent unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that terminated the IPR on patent 11,272,535. The Board granted the joint motion under 35 U.S.C. §317 and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s petition succeeded; the PTAB held all challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple won a PTAB IPR against Omni MedSci, finding 12 of the 23 challenged claims of the 10,517,484 B2 wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s inter‑partes review of Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent resulted in all challenged claims being held unpatentable. The Board found the claims obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR resulted in the Board finding all six challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering wearable optical sensing.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB found that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent failed; all asserted claims were found obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’533 wearable physiological measurement patent were unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge succeeded, finding all of the asserted claims of Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑measurement patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, modulation, and AI‑driven analysis.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple successfully invalidated Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent in a final PTAB decision, finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The Board affirmed claim constructions and applied the petitioner’s alternative argument on the combination of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a partial victory over Omni MedSci's wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while leaving 11 claims intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘299 patent was decided with all challenged claims (7, 10‑14) found unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR of Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable under §103, based on obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding claims 1, 2, 7 and 15‑23 unpatentable while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple succeeded in invalidating Omni MedSci's wearable physiological measurement patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims obvious over prior art.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art reference, Horie, anticipated the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This decision relates to Mobile Payment Authorization technology and is tied to related District Court litigation.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
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.