US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 132 of 188 · 5,620 total
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Stellar, LLC's surveillance apparatus patent (9912914) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely combinations of existing prior art references related to video recording and data management.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH initiated an IPR challenge against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP concerning a patent covering oral/topical drug delivery systems. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including Dohil and Grother.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining prior art references would teach the challenged limitations, moving the case toward substantive obviousness analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review of an institution decision and subsequently denied the IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, LLC. The denial was based on Fintiv factors favoring dismissal due to extensive prior litigation in district court.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Masaba seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that upheld an obviousness finding on its aggregate transferring system patent. The patent owner contends the Board ignored critical real‑world evidence and mis‑qualified the petitioner’s expert.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute, prompting the PTAB to dismiss IPR2024-01160 before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to dismiss and ordered the settlement kept confidential.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,292,743, prompting a joint motion to dismiss the pending IPR before it was instituted.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Solaris defends the PTAB's finding that Masaba’s conveyor patent is obvious, emphasizing lack of nexus and proper expert testimony. The response rebuts Masaba’s secondary‑considerations arguments and procedural objections.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Watson Guide IP’s dental guide patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent on back-contact solar cell technology. The petitioner argues that key claims are unpatentable due to obviousness when combining the patented structure with various prior art references.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Petitioner Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,602,448 covering remote wakeup systems in a PTAB petition. The challenge asserts that the patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Zhang, Zill, Liu).
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. has filed an IPR Petition challenging patents held by THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY regarding Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connectivity for video streaming. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Lorex Manual and Kim941.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. challenged Infogation Corp.'s patent 6292743, arguing that the claimed use of non-proprietary, natural language formats for routes was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies on various prior art references, including McGrath and Knockeart, to demonstrate that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to make simple modifications.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of a patent related to Radio Link Control (RLC) protocols. Petitioners argue that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by existing 3GPP communication standards. The core dispute centers on whether prior art correctly detects protocol errors in wireless transmissions.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Watson Guide IP regarding dental prosthesis claims under 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness, despite disputes over claim language and prior art interpretation.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged the validity of a network communications patent (US 10602448) based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding sufficient likelihood for petitioner to prevail on at least one claim.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Solaris against Masaba's aggregate handling patent (11780689), finding a reasonable likelihood that key claims are obvious over Waldner and Dynatek.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied AT&T and other petitioners' challenges to Innovative Sonic Limited's wireless patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected arguments that 3GPP specifications anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed error handling method.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
The PTAB found that all challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Llop '126 and Sichuan. The Board determined there was a clear motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Specifically, Claim 1 and dependent claims were found obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations like the Lorex Manual and Kim '941. This decision significantly weakens the Patent Owner's position in this IPR proceeding.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation by Zhang (Sec. 102) and obviousness using combinations of Zhang/Zill and Liu/Zhang (Sec. 103).
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Waldner and Dynatek, along with others like Auld and McIver, rendered the claimed aggregate transferring apparatus predictable engineering.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.