Thomas L. Giannetti
63 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
63 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled four inter partes review proceedings before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 10,740,281 after institution.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752, filing joint motions that led the PTAB to terminate the IPRs. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Motion Offense LLC's patent, challenging claims 17-21 based on obviousness. The Board found that Dropbox demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several claims, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding prior art disclosure and prosecution history.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox successfully petitioned to invalidate Motion Offense LLC's patent claims based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Riepling and Meisels. The PTAB granted the petition, instituting the case for trial.
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.
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).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to challenge EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent on virtual mirror/interactive display technology. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 1, initiating an IPR proceeding against the core claims (1-18).
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
Uber Technologies' IPR challenge against Envosys' location tracking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding the scope of geographic notification limitations.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Uber Technologies against Envosys, LLC, finding that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding combining references to teach location tracking and geographic boundary disclosure.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to location tracking and wireless systems. The Board found insufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over the cited prior art, particularly regarding specific limitations like 'tracking period' or 'tracking request.'
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent 8982109, challenging claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Lionra Technologies regarding patent 7,738,471, challenging claims related to high-speed packet header processing.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent (9887838). The Board found that MediaTek presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) across all 24 claimed claims.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google successfully secured institution of IPR against EscapeX IP over a social networking patent, challenging 24 claims based on obviousness.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon successfully challenged the '904 patent, leading to its institution after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The challenge focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding automated profile collection and data targeting methods.
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.