Steven M. Amundson
95 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
95 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply and Everlight Electronics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,742, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential per regulatory provisions.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the more‑likely‑than‑not standard for unpatentability.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison’s petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the combination of prior art references Stone and Hoyos. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner Apple Inc.'s arguments that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these systems for improved fraud resistance in electronic transactions.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 of the '886 patent are unpatentable. The Board concluded that the claimed fraud detection methods were obvious over combinations of prior art references including Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese.
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.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that several original claims were unpatentable over Buibas in view of Sinyavskiy. However, the Board subsequently found the petitioner's substitute claims obvious over combinations of Grotmol and Zhu prior art, leading to further rejection.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The Board found the claims unpatentable under 103(a) over Goossens2003 and Drake. The decision hinged on demonstrating that an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine a Network-on-Chip (NoC) architecture with a Quality of Service (QoS) management system for resource optimization.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they were obvious in light of prior art references (Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, Russell). The Board adopted a construction of 'concurrently writing' that aligned with both parties and district court precedent. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of disclosures taught all limitations of the claims for high-speed packet processing.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW challenged claims of Foras Technologies' patent related to switching the boot processor role in multi-processor systems. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove unpatentability over prior art references.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Carbyne Biometrics' patent (9972010), challenging numerous claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, allowing the case to proceed to patentability analysis.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's biometric fraud detection patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone and Hoyos. This decision sets the stage for a trial focusing on how existing financial security methods could be combined to achieve the claimed results.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant, Inc. successfully challenged 20 claims of Vigilytics LLC's patent (10886012) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the technology for de-identifying medical data was obvious over prior art references like Evenhaim and Murphy. The PTAB decided to institute the case, finding a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant successfully challenged the validity of Vigilytics' patent 9665685 in an IPR proceeding. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success on all grounds, instituting the case for further review.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged 17 claims of Nokia's video compression patent via IPR, arguing obviousness over prior art. The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, particularly concerning the combination of Rusert and Karczewicz techniques.
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.