US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 166 of 188 · 5,620 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining existing network technologies taught or rendered obvious the claimed limitations, particularly in multicast routing and packet processing.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla’s IPR against Autonomous Devices’ ’974 patent resulted in the Board finding claims 4 and 11 unpatentable and also striking the proposed substitute claims 21 and 24‑26, while leaving claims 5, 7 and other substitutes intact.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled their IPR dispute over patent 6,292,743 B1, leading the Board to dismiss the case before a trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential under statutory provisions.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney challenges the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability for a movie‑distribution method, arguing the Board relied on an improper combination of prior art. The petition seeks Director review of the decision.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corp. and Infogation Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,107,628 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue dismissal is appropriate at this early stage.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The Board issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their Confidential Settlement Agreement private under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The agreement will be treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics jointly moved to dismiss IPR2024‑00743 covering claims 1‑17 of U.S. Patent 11,628,300. The parties cite a confidential settlement and the early, pre‑institution stage of the proceeding as reasons for dismissal.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that the Board’s claim constructions and prior‑art analysis were correct. The response contends the request adds no new arguments and should be denied.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Digital Media Technology Holdings seeks a 30‑day extension to file a Director Review request after the PTAB’s final decision on its U.S. Patent 7,574,725, citing good cause due to counsel’s age and heavy workload.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing competitive harm if disclosed. The Board has yet to rule on the request.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order compelling Cala Health and EMKinetics to file a true copy of their settlement agreement before the joint motion to dismiss can be acted upon, emphasizing compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). A dissenting judge argues the rule does not apply pre‑institution.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
WellcomeMat seeks Director Review of a Board decision that declared its video‑editing cue‑point patent invalid. The Owner contends the Board misapplied legal standards on anticipation, obviousness, and claim construction.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point processing for online real‑estate videos. Petitioner Aylo Freesites showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, and the Board rejected discretionary denial arguments.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd responded to WellcomeMat’s Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly found claims 13‑15 and 17‑20 of the ’286 patent unpatentable based on proper prior‑art comparison. The Board’s analysis of the video‑editing environment claim term was upheld, and the request for review should be denied.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Largan’s 9,997,660 patent covering a light‑trap optical sheet. The petitioner claims the Board erred by dismissing simultaneous‑invention evidence and applying an unduly rigid obviousness test.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKINETICS settled their dispute over two patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before trial.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint motion to dismiss the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,786,669, citing a confidential settlement and the early stage of the proceeding. They request the Board terminate the case before institution to preserve resources.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,292,743 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending inter partes review.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB granted Digital Media Technology Holdings a two‑week extension to file a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00736 concerning patent 7,574,725.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The USPTO denied Disney Media's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00736 concerning patent 7,574,725. The Board found the petition did not meet the required standards for review.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Motorola Mobility's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR 2024-00688 concerning patent 9,997,660. The institution denial remains in effect, ending the IPR proceeding.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla (Petitioner) challenged Autonomous Devices' patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Buibas and Grotmol. The Board found factors favoring institution, meaning the case will proceed to the merits phase.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges EMKinetics' patent on tremor treatment using electrical stimulation, arguing that prior art references Gesotti and Burnett render all claims obvious or anticipated. The petitioner details how these older devices satisfy every limitation of the claimed apparatus and method for treating neurological conditions like tremor.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,574,725 on grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger argues that the claimed method for multimedia distribution is rendered obvious by combining prior art references like Garfinkle and Kosten. This challenge relates to Digital Content Delivery/Video-on-Demand technology.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges the validity of EMKinetics' '669 patent by asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Gesotti and Burnett. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology for tremor treatment is already disclosed in the prior art, presenting multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
Intel Corporation initiated this Petition challenging the validity of Ericsson's patent (7151430), asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Taniguchi, Midya, and Raghavan to demonstrate that claimed features in inductive coupling/antenna design were already known or suggested.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC challenged Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s patent claims regarding lens design and stray light reduction in a PTAB proceeding. The challenge centers on obviousness, arguing that the claimed 'light trap' structure is merely an predictable adaptation of prior art CN182.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla successfully argued that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, leading to the Board's decision to institute IPR trial. The petitioner focused on combining spiking neural network techniques with autonomous robotic operation for improved efficiency and task specialization. This institution sets up a high-stakes technical battle regarding AI implementation in robotics.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Digital Media Technology Holdings regarding patent 7574725. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for key terms like 'distributing' and 'exhibiting,' favoring the Petitioner’s interpretation over the Patent Owner’s narrow industry definitions. This sets a favorable precedent for interpreting media technology claims broadly in PTAB proceedings.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against WellcomeMat, LLC's patent (8307286) concerning online video/real estate marketing. The Board found that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard despite prior district court litigation.
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.