William V. Saindon
67 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
67 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the Petitioner's arguments of obviousness against 21 claims related to video stabilization and motion blur compensation. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'low-light high-pass parameter,' finding that the prior art did not disclose this specific functional element.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,840 because the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board specifically rejected obviousness arguments related to 'stickiness parameter' and 'low-light high-pass parameter.'
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
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.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC regarding claims related to natural gas liquid recovery and CO2 reinjection. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Aycaguer in view of Soldati for several key claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent (9,116,546), asserting that the haptic feedback claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on Claim 1 based on Rosenberg.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent covering haptic feedback systems. The Board found sufficient persuasive evidence that Valve could prevail on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Pratt and Ku.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's shoe patent (10,674,786), challenging claims 1-8 based on obviousness over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Athalonz, LLC's shoe patent (11,064,760 B2). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over prior art like Kim and Dufour.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenged North Atlantic Imports' cooking appliance patent on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be obvious based on the prior art references. This moves the dispute toward trial preparation in District Court.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution in the IPR against Immersion Corporation's haptics patent (10627907). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references, particularly Goldenberg.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. against CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.'s patent 11,410,355, finding that the challenger failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology's IPR challenge against CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.'s virtual clothing measurement patent. The Board found no motivation in the prior art (Grinspun and Graphicxtras) to combine them to achieve the claimed method of measuring 2D patterns with separation awareness.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in view of Bell and Shi. The Board adopted a functional construction of the key parameter.
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.