US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 185 of 188 · 5,620 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco responded to Umbra’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board’s claim‑construction finding that the preamble “for providing data beacons” is non‑limiting is correct and that the request should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems challenged UMBRA Technologies’ ’632 patent on data‑beacon and SD‑WAN innovations. UMBRA’s response argues the cited ’421 patent and ’685 provisional lack the required disclosures and contain cancelled matter, rendering them non‑prior art. The patent owner also asserts the term “data beacon” is a limiting preamble limitation not taught by the prior art.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00344, leaving the earlier IPR outcome unchanged.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229, challenging claims related to portable computing and orientation sensing. The grounds assert that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
HP Inc. et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 in a petition asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art references (Lane, Pogue, MIT, Hotelling, Segawa). The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely predictable combinations of existing technology in portable computing devices.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's IPR petition against Umbra Technologies regarding network security claims (1-26). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over the combined prior art teachings.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Dell and other companies against LiTL LLC's patent for display configurations in hinged devices. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically regarding mode switching using an accelerometer.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for HP Inc. et al. against LiTL LLC's patent claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'frame mode' and 'content mode,' clearing the path to trial.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully challenged seven claims of UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board preliminarily found that the claimed invention was obvious over the prior art reference Agarwala and general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the prior art reference Agarwala. The decision adopted Petitioner's construction that 'data beacons' was merely an intended use, and found that Agarwala disclosed every structural limitation of the claims through a combination of disclosures.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. submits a preliminary response to AT&T’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited prior art (Babaei, Fwu, Lee, Agiwal) does not teach the claimed “different‑from” RNTI, common search‑space, or confirmation features of claims 2 and 4, and therefore the petition should be denied.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
Vivitro Labs and the patent owner settled their IPR dispute over a biomedical device patent, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited argument about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO Labs and Biomedical Device Consultants & Laboratories of Colorado have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,237,935, filing a joint motion to terminate the ongoing IPR and keep settlement documents confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that cancelled 14 claims of its payment‑tokenization patent. The owner contends the Board introduced an unraised obviousness theory, violating procedural rules and the APA. The request asks the Director to reverse the cancellations and confirm the claims.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC jointly moved to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm and Icpillar have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 8,924,899 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential, effectively ending the proceeding.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Ltd. and patent owner ICPillar LLC have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,924,899. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00476 concerning patent 8,924,899. The petition was found not to meet the required standards.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility LLC and others filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed wireless communication features are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references including Babaei, Fwu, Lee, and Agiwal. This initial petition sets up a complex technical battle over 5G/LTE signaling techniques.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems challenges Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed ring topology flow allocation methods are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Kovvali and Kalman renders the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility LLC failed to secure institution in an IPR against Daingean Technologies regarding 5G cellular communications claims. The Board denied the petition because AT&T could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability, particularly concerning specific claim constructions related to RNTI and information types.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully navigated a discretionary denial challenge at the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against Portsmouth Network Corp. over network resource allocation claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite arguments regarding prior art redundancy and pending district court litigation.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's challenge to Cortex MCP's patent was upheld by the PTAB Director Review Panel. The panel affirmed the Board's finding that the prior art (Oborne) discloses the claimed credential verification limitation.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that Visa, Inc.'s claims were likely obvious over prior art references including Oborne and Neafsey. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'scan,' leading to the institution of 17 claims under Section 103.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Ltd.'s IPR challenge against ICPillar LLC's '8924899 patent was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over prior art including Rompaey and Banerjee. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for key software commands, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO LABS INC. successfully achieved institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Patent No. 9237935, challenging claims related to prosthetic heart valve testing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success over Dynatek regarding certain limitations, despite preliminary rejections on other grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-18 of the patent were unpatentable on grounds of obviousness over Kovvali and Kalman. The Board rejected the Petitioner's arguments, agreeing with the Patent Owner that there was no valid motivation to combine the references for resource allocation in ring topology data flow.
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.