TERRENCE W. McMILLIN
76 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
76 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s IPR against NTECH Properties, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, meaning trial will proceed on all challenged claims. The Board adopted a plain and ordinary meaning for 'media stream' while rejecting Petitioner’s arguments regarding specific claim limitations related to output signals.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok's IPR challenge against NTECH Properties failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying all grounds of obviousness. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the cited prior art taught or suggested the limitations of the challenged claims in the video streaming patent.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok's IPR petition against NTECH Properties was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that Petitioner could not adequately teach or suggest key limitations from the cited prior art (Marcus156 and Ferman).
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven of the ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments, specifically using Whitehead as primary evidence for aggregation and content delivery systems.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding most claims (1-12 and 14-18) unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art. Claims 13 and 19-24 were found patentable, despite significant dispute over claim construction terms like 'media stream.'
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu's petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media's eSports event platform patent, citing a prior district‑court §101 invalidity ruling and efficiency concerns.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute inter partes review of Piranha Media’s eSports patent, finding the petition failed the compelling merits standard. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against a peer‑to‑peer gaming patent, finding the petition failed the compelling‑merits test. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not teach key claim limitations, resulting in a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco and Croga Innovations jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a confidential settlement, and the Board granted the termination.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding network security claims, arguing obviousness over combinations of Jeffries, LaBine, and Ishaya. The Board found that the strong showing of unpatentability on the merits outweighed factors favoring denial, leading to institution.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding VoIP bandwidth management claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Patent No. 9,330,593 B2 in the OLED circuitry space. The Board found sufficient showing for institution based on Petitioner's analysis of Tobita as prior art under §102(b).
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Maxell's patent 11017815. The Board found that Samsung presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, overcoming prior art challenges based on combinations of references like Horn and Baumgartner.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Samsung against Maxell regarding video management systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Horn and Baumgartner. This moves the case into substantive examination on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s patent claims related to camera control systems. The Board declined discretionary denial despite parallel district court litigation because the petitioner agreed not to assert the same grounds there.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found that claims 1-6 and 9-13 were unpatentable over Kaplan and Bryant under 35 U.S.C. § 103, while rejecting the challenge to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 due to insufficient evidence of prior art accessibility. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'user profile,' aligning with district court findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims unpatentable by obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining various prior art references—including Chinn, Takahashi, and Kim—would render the claimed features obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s attempt to challenge Maxell, Ltd.'s patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that proceeding with the review would be inefficient due to the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and TCL's late filing.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla successfully argued that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, leading to the Board's decision to institute IPR trial. The petitioner focused on combining spiking neural network techniques with autonomous robotic operation for improved efficiency and task specialization. This institution sets up a high-stakes technical battle regarding AI implementation in robotics.
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.