US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 204 of 286 · 8,574 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia Technologies Oy faces an Inter Partes Review challenge regarding its video compression patents, specifically concerning sub-pixel interpolation methods. The petitioner argues that combining TML6 and Fandrianto renders the claimed method obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). This proceeding centers on whether the combination of prior art references meets the 103 obviousness standard.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
Petitioner Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833, arguing the methods for maximizing ESPP shares are obvious over prior art combining financial and computer technology.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to challenge Optronic Sciences LLC's '733 patent, leading to its institution at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that claims related to OLED/AMOLED pixel structures are invalid under 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness). This moves the dispute into a detailed examination of prior art combinations in display technology.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,263,509 held by Optronic Sciences, LLC. The petition asserts that the patent claims related to OLED pixel structure are anticipated (102) or obvious (103) over various combinations of prior art references. This challenges the validity of key display technology patents.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD initiated an IPR challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's OLED display patent (7,586,121). The petitioner asserts that the claimed structural and manufacturing elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Anzai and Yamazaki.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE challenged Optronic Sciences' LCD sealant patents under anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103). The PTAB found the petition met compelling merits standards, resulting in institution of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's LED backlighting patents (7168842) based on anticipation and obviousness. The challenge targets claims 3-9, arguing that combinations of prior art references like Uekusa and Isoda render the claimed technology unpatentable.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenges SherryWear's sports bra patent (10869510) based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna, Rose, and Glass. The petitioner argues that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would find it obvious to modify existing designs using common knowledge regarding materials and pocket function.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike, Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,244,800 held by SherryWear, LLC. The core challenge is obviousness over multiple prior art references including Spagna, Rose, and Glass. This petition also raises issues regarding the priority date entitlement of the challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,219,551 held by SherryWear, LLC in a PTAB Petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed pocketed bra designs are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references like Vidai and Handras.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike has filed a petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 10,219,550 held by SherryWear, LLC, arguing that the claims related to bra pockets are obvious.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike challenges SherryWear’s patent (9,808,036) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claimed pocket bra designs are obvious over existing prior art references. The petition asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations of references like Barg, York, and Pintor. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the two companies.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's patented pocketed bra design (U.S. 9,723,878) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Vidai and Handras in view of Spagna. The Board found that Nike met its burden to show a reasonably strong case for unpatentability.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,295,288 held by SherryWear regarding intimate apparel design features. The petitioner argues that the claimed bra elements are obvious combinations of prior art references like Barg and York. This challenge tests the boundaries of routine design choices in the apparel industry.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike filed a PTAB petition challenging the validity of SherryWear's bra pocket system claims, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Barg and Pintor. The petitioner argues that these combinations render the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike has filed a Petition challenging SherryWear's U.S. Patent No. 9,289,016 in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the bra design claims are obvious.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patents held by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. and Celerity IP, LLC. The core dispute centers on claims related to beamforming control signaling in massive MIMO systems. Petitioners assert that the claimed novelty is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10656754) at the PTAB, arguing that core mobile interface claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining existing teachings regarding gestures and state transitions results in predictable functionality.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The challenge focuses on claims related to gesture detection and advanced user interface features like blurring effects and card metaphor multitasking. This action aims to invalidate key patents in the mobile computing space.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on mobile interface features. The core argument centers on obviousness, asserting that combining prior art teachings regarding gestures (Ahn) and visual feedback (Chaudhri '842) renders the claims unpatentable. This challenge targets key functionality in Human-Computer Interaction.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging patent 10656754, arguing that the claimed UI transition methods are obvious over a combination of Ahn's mobile UI and Chaudhri '842's state transition techniques. The petitioner asserts that POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve usability and provide sensory feedback during gestures.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging 25 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent related to touch screen interface design. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious over prior art combining gesture recognition and visual state transition techniques.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 related to hydrofoil watercraft. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core features including passive stability and propulsion systems.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. challenged MHL Custom's hydrofoil watercraft patent via petition, arguing that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references. The petitioner cited documents like EvoloReport and Woolley to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness across multiple claims related to stability and control.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges The Procter & Gamble Company's patent (11540999) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed deodorant stick compositions are merely basic concepts already known or readily derivable from existing natural deodorant prior art.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd has filed an IPR petition challenging Patent No. 8307286 owned by WellcomeMat, LLC. The Petitioner asserts that Claims 13 and 17 are unpatentable due to anticipation (Section 102) and multiple instances of obviousness (Section 103).
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.