US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 164 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Multifold’s 8,842,080 patent covering multi‑display icon handling on handheld devices. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over Japanese patents Ogawa, Yook, and Choi and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition against Multifold's dual‑screen patent, seeking to invalidate twelve claims as obvious over Yook, Bauer and Lee references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's 8,836,842 patent covering dual‑screen handheld devices, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Chin and Whitehorn.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Woodbury Wireless’s ’930 MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Lastinger and Gore references.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Cerence’s ’750 patent covering low‑power voice activation. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola Mobility successfully had their patentability challenge instituted against Multifold International's '007 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on prior art references Purcell and Nicholas, advancing the dispute to trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,842,080 B2 based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references (Ogawa, Yook et al., Choi) render the patent claims unpatentable. The case is now set for trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Multifold International's patent 9141135 on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB institution decision adopted a broader claim construction for 'displays information selectively across the annunciator window,' allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola challenged Multifold's patent on user interface technology based on anticipation and obviousness. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was unpatentable, moving the case toward trial.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully secured institution in this IPR against Multifold International regarding dual screen image capture technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, despite the Patent Owner's arguments for narrow claim construction.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google challenged Multifold's patent claims regarding multi-screen device interfaces under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Google and Samsung's claims against Cerence. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, which weighed heavily in favor of preventing duplicative proceedings.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 using prior art references Ogawa, Choi, and Yook. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'open application state' and 'display.'
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references Yook, Bauer, and Lee. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of multi-screen user interfaces.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Cerence that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465, outlining a five‑page, five‑business‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s denial of institution for IPR2024-01464 covering U.S. Patent 11,393,461. They argue the Board acted ultra vires and misapplied Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation and trial‑date uncertainty. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its voice‑assistant patent, arguing that the Board acted within authority and that petitioners’ due‑process claims were unfounded.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’730 biometric‑authentication patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over the Burger and Robinson references.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8,886,954, finding that the petition did not warrant institution as a second challenge.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
Innolux files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 5‑6 of the ‘788 LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues no denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Innolux has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of 12 claims of U.S. Patent 7,233,305 covering gamma‑correction ICs for LCDs, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that earlier procedural deficiencies have been remedied.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
The PTAB denied Innolux Corporation's IPR petition against Phenix Longhorn LLC, citing the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline.
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.