Sharon Fenick
110 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
110 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,706 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The grounds included anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), utilizing prior art references such as Horie, Kano, and Kobayashi.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-14) were patentable over the prior art. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction of key terms like 'based on,' requiring temporal dependency on currently displayed content.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the '805 patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily over a combination of prior art references Melnychenko and Chen. Key claim constructions favored the Petitioner, particularly regarding 'pre-defined format' as merely an order of data/metadata.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 12 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board concluded that combining various prior art references—including Kim, TechnoBuffalo, and Ma—rendered the VOD user interface methods obvious.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
The PTAB found multiple claims of the '430 patent unpatentable over prior art, primarily Taniguchi. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction that key claim terms were not limiting, supporting obviousness findings across several grounds.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found claims related to gesture-equipped touch screens unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley) taught all limitations through predictable results.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding 59 claims of the '758 patent unpatentable based primarily on obviousness (103) over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine these prior art references to teach numerous claimed features in the touch interface technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that Smith Interface Technologies' claims were obvious. The Board found no persuasive evidence in the prior art combination to support the claimed progressive blurring or menu appearance during gesture detection.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding progressive menu sliding during gesture detection.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB instituted trial on all four claims of patent 7357310 after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner, Askeladden L.L.C., would prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The grounds relied heavily on the prior art reference 'Horie' to anticipate and render obvious the mobile payment authorization claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Calabrese Stemer LLC, asserting that the '564 patent' claims are anticipated by prior art (Horie). The Board found sufficient likelihood of success regarding Claim 1 based on the prior art disclosure of card usage status notifications.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Calabrese Stemer LLC's credit card authorization patent (7954706). The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims, leading to a favorable outcome for the Petitioner.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' IPR against STA Group, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges over prior art Choksi.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Ericsson's patent (10425817) covering 5G security protocols. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on combinations of prior art references, leading to a trial proceeding.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB denied VIZIO's request to challenge Multimedia Technologies' patent (9,232,168) because a key claim term ('a different user interface device') was found to be indefinite. The Board ruled it could not assess obviousness without clear claim scope.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
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.