US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 178 of 188 · 5,620 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast submits an authorized response urging denial of Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, asserting no abuse of discretion and that the Board’s explanation of the Zhang reference satisfies the required memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits after PTAB final decisions in three IPRs, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The board has been asked to deny the request.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications has requested Director Review of the IPR involving Comcast’s challenge to patent 11,381,866. Comcast may file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days, and no additional briefing is permitted.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics technology.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation filed a Petition challenging 13 claims of Resonant Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that the claimed linear vibration actuators are predictable combinations of prior art in haptics and control systems.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 covering vibration generation/haptics technology. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of prior art references like Houston and Goldenberg.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 regarding linear vibration actuators used in haptics/feedback devices. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a detailed examination of the patent's validity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00569, finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenged claims regarding vibration modules and actuators. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) by upholding the requirement for an algorithmic step in the 'control component' structure.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability of numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied heavily on combinations of prior art references, notably Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, to support its findings against the patent owner. This outcome significantly strengthens the petitioner's position in the ongoing litigation.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute an IPR against Entropic's patent, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The Board determined that one petition was sufficient and denying the second would prevent unnecessary burden.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Comcast's claims against Entropic Communications. The grounds centered on anticipation and obviousness using prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The IPR concluded that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated claims 1-18 were unpatentable over prior art references based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a clear motivation to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding redesign complexity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found all 82 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that Zhang et al. anticipates or renders obvious the claims through various combinations with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey. Key findings included that Zhang's demultiplexer/selector satisfies the DFE limitation, and 'concurrently' does not require zero delay.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the patent was anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Zhang et al., in combination with other cited references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00452, asserting the Board misapplied KSR precedent and case law on motivation and bodily incorporation. The petition references Intel decisions and a related institution ruling on another patent.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Comcast's request for Director review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00445, keeping the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Entropic’s cable‑modem patent. The petition asserts the Board erred by analyzing each prior‑art reference in isolation instead of as the combinations with Thibeault. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00577 (and similarly in IPR2024-00671), leaving the original decisions in place.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
An email from the PTAB Director authorizes ADC Solutions Auto to submit a limited 15‑page response to Director Review requests in IPR2024-00577 and IPR2024-00671, with no new evidence permitted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB Director has received a review request from the patent owner in IPR2024-00446. Comcast may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner presented multiple grounds combining prior art references like Renken, Maycock, Kidambi, and Zhang. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's patent covering jump start apparatus technology, asserting that key claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed USB charging features are obvious when combining prior art references like Richardson with Zhao or Yu with Paparrizos.
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.