US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 137 of 188 · 5,620 total
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the review of patent 9,586,659. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 before the Board could institute a trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the PTAB granted, dismissing the petitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
An email notifies that the PTAB has received a Director Review request in IPR2024-01083 and outlines strict response limits for Apple.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple submits an authorized response opposing Smith Interface Technologies' Director Review request, asserting that the PTAB correctly found motivation to combine prior art references. The brief emphasizes that Smith’s arguments mischaracterize the combination and lack undisputed technical evidence.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision that found its UI‑menu patent obvious. The patent owner argues the Board lacked a proper motivation analysis for combining the Ahn and Hinckley references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint termination motion was granted, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has requested a Director Review of the IPR against Dr. Squatch, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their IPR dispute over a probe‑card patent. They jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia and Ericsson settled the IPR against Cobblestone Wireless’s 7,924,802 patent and asked the PTAB to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to invoke discretionary denial provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Oura’s wearable smart‑ring patent, arguing obviousness over Sun and Kruse references and indefiniteness of claim 6. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under the FINTIV provision.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patents held by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. and Celerity IP, LLC. The core dispute centers on claims related to beamforming control signaling in massive MIMO systems. Petitioners assert that the claimed novelty is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The challenge focuses on claims related to gesture detection and advanced user interface features like blurring effects and card metaphor multitasking. This action aims to invalidate key patents in the mobile computing space.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Head Sport GmbH initiated an Inter Partes Review against Vermont Safety Developments LLC, challenging claims related to ski binding systems and injury prevention. The petitioner argues that various claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Dodge, Howell, Gulick, and Sittmann. The Board determined the petition was meritorious, leading to institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging 37 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10649580). The core argument is that the claimed touchscreen interaction and zooming widgets are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on combinations of prior art from Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, Ording, and Hayward. Apple contends that known techniques were predictable solutions available to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,649,578 held by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references, specifically Shiplacoff and a combination of Shiplacoff with Nan. This proceeding addresses fundamental questions regarding gesture recognition in touch screen interfaces.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,642,413 owned by Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-equipped touch screen systems. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Ahn, Chaudhri-842, and Hinkley. This challenge targets core aspects of modern user interface design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has initiated an IPR petition challenging Oura Health's patent claims related to health monitoring and fitness tracking. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Ahmed, Wisbey, and Shiga.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.
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.