US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 144 of 291 · 8,722 total
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Lenovo and Motorola against Headwater Research, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,949,389 unpatentable. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on Kijima and Suzuki, emphasizing that the prior art did not meet the agreed-upon definition of 'planarization layer' which requires suppressing underlying topography.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of its IPR against BOE Technology Group, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the new Director’s guidance did not apply.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to grant termination under settlement‑friendly policy.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences filed a joint notice confirming that the IPR oral hearing transcript and final written decision will be made fully public, and that specific exhibits will not remain sealed.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision Inc. (Insta360) has challenged GoPro's video stabilization patent via an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) challenged GoPro's '840 patent in the PTAB, arguing that numerous claims related to video stabilization are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references—including Bell and Shi—teach how to improve motion blur reduction and utilize temporal horizons. This petition challenges 21 specific claims based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD initiated an IPR challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's OLED display patent (7,586,121). The petitioner asserts that the claimed structural and manufacturing elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Anzai and Yamazaki.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE challenged Optronic Sciences' LCD sealant patents under anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103). The PTAB found the petition met compelling merits standards, resulting in institution of the IPR.
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 light of prior art references Zhou and Cai.
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.
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Pakage Apparel's '974 patent based on obviousness over prior art combinations (Kitsch/Brocks). The PTAB declined discretionary denial because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to demonstrate material error in prosecution history.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences LLC's patent 7586121, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the Petitioner across all challenged claims (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 2, 6).
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.
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.'
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The Board found all seven challenged claims unpatentable, rejecting the patent owner's narrow construction of 'passivation layer.' The petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references (Anzai and Yamazaki) taught or rendered obvious the claimed invention in OLED devices.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully challenged the ’282 battery‑binder patent, with the PTAB finding all 16 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over multiple carbon‑nanotube references.
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.