US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 142 of 188 · 5,620 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway challenged Intex's patent, but the PTAB denied institution because Intex had statutorily disclaimed all claims. The Board also declined to enter an adverse judgment against Intex.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Court decision.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's request for Director Review of the institution decision on Corteva's patent 8,901,378, leaving the institution in place.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain's 11,854,612 patent covering mixed‑level NAND flash memory, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim to be unpatentable.
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.