US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 148 of 188 · 5,620 total
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. challenged CLO Virtual Fashion's patent on digital design methods, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references related to CAD systems renders the claimed apparatus and method predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Portsmouth Network Corporation's '637 Patent claims related to fast link failover systems for network communication failures. The petitioner asserts that the invention is obvious over various combinations of prior art references, primarily Mitchell.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia filed a petition challenging claims in the '892 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on combining prior art standards (ITU-T) and publications to demonstrate that claimed power management features are predictable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Petitioners challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,806,892 in a PTAB petition, arguing that several claims related to power management in optical networks are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely on combining industry standards (G.987.3, G.988) with technical disclosures from prior art references like Röger and Ghazisaidi.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halliburton Energy Services' patent (11333007) regarding wellbore gravel packing technology. The Board granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103).
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The grounds for institution were multiple obviousness rejections (103) over various prior art combinations in electromechanical devices. This decision moves the dispute into trial phase proceedings.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB denied institution for Cisco Systems' IPR against Portsmouth Network Corporation regarding network failover methods. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the prior art, specifically Mitchell.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems' attempt to overturn the denial of IPR institution against Portsmouth Network Corporation was rejected by the Delegated Review Panel. The DRP upheld the Board's implicit claim construction, finding that the claims covered all network nodes, not just downstream ones.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). Specifically, claims 11, 12, and 14–20 were found obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board also denied the Patent Owner's motion to amend regarding substitute claims 29-37, rejecting some for lack of enablement/utility.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically regarding vibration-generating devices. The Board concluded that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine prior art references like Alexander and Cosper to achieve the claimed results.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,640,733 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
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.