US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 140 of 188 · 5,620 total
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan and Foras Technologies filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the IPR, effectively ending the dispute.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan, and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to withdraw the IPR petition for U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes and requesting termination of the proceeding.
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.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Maxeon Solar, challenging claims related to solar cell fabrication. The Board found that Canadian Solar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds over various prior art combinations. This sets up a high-stakes trial in advanced photovoltaic technology.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted Qualcomm’s joinder request and instituted inter partes review of Network System Technologies’ NoC patent, covering claims 2,6,9‑16.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the IPR, and the parties seek confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Northern Research entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01044 covering patent RE48,629. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc., Brødrene Hartmann A/S, and The Happy Group Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01037 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent owner Maurice J.P. Tabone. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its discretionary authority.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group settled their IPR dispute with inventor Maurice Tabone over Patent 10,287,070. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
Court decision.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
Qualcomm challenged Network System Technologies' patent claims related to resource management in Network on Chip (NoC) technology. The petitioner asserts that the claimed functionality is obvious over prior art references by combining known networking techniques.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging E-Vision Smart Optics' '960 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petitioner asserts that foundational concepts like voice commands and proximity detection were disclosed much earlier by competitors. This action targets 26 claims based on combinations of patents including Jannard-740 and Rosenblatt.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. 10,287,070 regarding its container design features. Petitioners assert that the claimed elements are obvious over prior art references Beese and King in the food packaging field.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has filed a Petition challenging claims related to portrait mode image processing, asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner argues that combining existing techniques like background blurring with sharpness enhancement renders the patented invention obvious.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of patent 7454056, which covers color balance correction and face detection technologies. The Petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Yano, Schroder, Kuwata, and Nakamura. This challenge targets core image processing methods used in digital imaging.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has challenged a patent covering image enhancement and object detection methods before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining known face detection techniques with existing image processing apparatuses renders all 12 claimed methods unpatentable under Section 103. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation involving Google LLC in district court.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge a patent covering image processing techniques, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA successfully petitioned to have Bell Northern Research's wireless communication patents instituted for obviousness under § 103. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, including Jones and 802.11a, renders multiple claims unpatentable. This institution decision sets a strong precedent regarding OFDM technology in wireless communications.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase in this IPR, securing institution on several claims related to color balance correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Claim 1 based on combinations of prior art references (Yano and Schröder).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC's IPR petition against a patent covering image processing methods was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 26 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features of smart eyewear were taught by combinations of prior art references, including Jannard, Rosenblatt, Chen, and Nielsen. This final decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the wearable technology space.
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.