US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 171 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's patent 11,805,267. The order affirms that the institution decisions stand.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Chris Hoff of Barnes & Thornburg filed a Director Review request on behalf of VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD. after the Board instituted IPR2024-00695 against Cisco Systems. The owner contends the Board’s sua sponte arguments merit a higher‑level review.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,791,808, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their dispute with patent owner Implicit over U.S. Patent 8,056,075 B2. The PTAB granted a motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo challenged Ericsson's patent on IMSI encryption technologies before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on combinations of Nair and Forsberg, along with 3GPP standards, to demonstrate lack of non-obviousness. This petition asserts that existing knowledge made the claimed security enhancements predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of patent 8649426 owned by VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references Perlman and Oguz teach known solutions for reducing video encoding latency, rendering the claimed methods unpatentable.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One National Association filed an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent 8056075 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The petition asserts that the claims are rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references including Fowlow and Kimera.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (11805267), arguing that the claimed weighted bi-directional motion prediction is anticipated by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Karczewicz references to demonstrate that using higher precision for intermediate calculations was already known in the field.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Ericsson's patent (10425817) covering 5G security protocols. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on combinations of prior art references, leading to a trial proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully secured the institution of its IPR against VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., challenging 13 claims related to low latency video conferencing over § 103 obviousness. The Board found compelling evidence that Cisco has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple independent and dependent claims, moving the dispute into active litigation.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully navigated the institution phase of its IPR against Nokia regarding video coding claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon could prove unpatentability under § 103, leading to the case being instituted for trial.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
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.