US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 182 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
SMAXTEC and its affiliate contest ST Reproductive Technologies' Director Review request, defending the Board’s obviousness findings for several claims of a livestock health monitoring patent and offering limited remand only to clarify claim 18 and reconcile claims 6, 19, and 20.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
ST Reproductive Technologies requests Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision that invalidated dependent claims 4, 6, and 18‑20 of its livestock‑monitoring patent. The owner alleges the Board misapplied prior‑art references and failed to consider claim‑specific arguments, seeking reversal or vacatur.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
In its preliminary reply, the patent owner defends the 8,823,515 patent against smaXtec's IPR petition by asserting that the Trevarthen reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure satisfies the ‘implanted’ claim language.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Unstoppable Domains Inc.'s patent covering Domain Name Resolution (ENS) methods. The petitioner argues that the core claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references related to blockchain functionality.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against a patent covering animal management systems using RFID technology. The Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references, including Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao, provided sufficient motivation to combine elements of the challenged claims.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Unstoppable Domains Inc. was denied by the PTAB, primarily because the petitioner failed to prove that key prior art documentation qualified as publicly accessible under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board found the evidence of public accessibility insufficient to support the obviousness grounds asserted across multiple claims.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
Exotec Product France SAS and co-petitioner successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Opex Corporation's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou in the field of Automated Warehouse Robotics.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Lumenco's anti-counterfeiting patent (10317691), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou. The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to solve known industry problems like congestion and inefficiency in automated material handling systems.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco’s petition argues that the Board correctly interpreted the term “memory circuit” to include multiple components, rejecting Lionra’s claim of procedural error. The Director Review Request is urged to be 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.