Weatherly
77 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
77 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International Corp. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Voith Patent GmbH regarding patent number 11261566, challenging all 15 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's arguments that combinations of prior art references render the claimed features predictable in textile manufacturing.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 16 claims in a dispute involving Stratasys's 3D printing technology. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art, specifically Warren.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully had its IPR institution decision upheld, advancing the case against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent 9021112. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned to challenge claims of Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (10583449) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR against Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (9527094) for obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 7 based on Sevy, leading to trial institution.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard's IPR challenge to Medline Industries' patent was terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the Board granting a joint motion to dismiss before instituting the trial.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Tire Stickers LLC's patent (11,124,027 B2) regarding display assemblies for tires. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple grounds of obviousness over several 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.