US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 150 of 188 · 5,620 total
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements challenges Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent (11050097) by asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references, such as Hanisch with Meador and Shin, renders the claimed features predictable for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the claims covering adaptive bitrate streaming are obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combinations of references like Ogdon and Allen, supplemented by Klements and Gamble, teach every limitation of the challenged claims.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully instituted an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent (10080472) covering vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The Director vacated the Final Written Decision and dismissed the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that the petition was time-barred after correcting its list of Real Parties in Interest.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing successfully convinced the PTAB that all 19 claims of patent 11736855 were unpatentable. The Board found the claims invalid under both obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and various indefiniteness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation filed an IPR challenging the validity of Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '339 patent related to automated correction of imaging distortions. The petitioner argues that multiple combinations of prior art references render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the petition demonstrated a strong showing on the merits, leading to institution.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of claim 10 of Micron’s challenged 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s IPR against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that left its 3D NAND flash patent claims unchallenged. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored reply evidence. A reversal could affect the enforceability of claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent 10,937,806.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs concerning patent 10,937,806. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding its 3D NAND memory patents. The petition challenges claims based on obviousness over prior art reference Toyama et al., asserting that specific modifications are predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D NAND memory technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 10 based on Toyama's First Exemplary Structure, moving the case toward trial preparation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments successfully defended its 7,496,342 patent against ParkerVision’s Director Review request, which sought to overturn the PTAB’s institution and obviousness findings. The Board affirmed that claims 18‑21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and Macnally, and the review request was denied.
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.