US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 183 of 188 · 5,620 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00734, finding the Board's claim‑construction error harmless. The patent owned by Lionra Technologies remains in force.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully instituted an IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering power management/cruise control systems, asserting obviousness over all challenged claims (1-20). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds that combining prior art references like Hongo and Obradovich renders the claimed technology obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for rehearing on the Final Written Decision, upholding the finding that claims 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,882,399 are unpatentable over Newstrom et al. The Board found Petitioner failed to adequately prove the database was remote.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
The IPR concerning patent 8,760,454 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. Realtek and ATI filed a joint motion to end the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries and ATI Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2024-00366 concerning U.S. Patent 8,760,454. The motion indicates a settlement and seeks to end the proceeding.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The IPR concerning Ridge Wallet's patent 10,791,808 was terminated after the parties reached a confidential settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement kept separate from the patent file.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Shenzhen Pincan Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Apple successfully challenged Immersion’s haptic‑feedback patent in an IPR, resulting in ten claims being found obvious over the Burrough prior‑art reference.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.
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.