US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 211 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found its MEMS gyroscope patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misidentified the key signal, relied on an unsupported modification, and ignored strong non‑obviousness evidence. Nintendo’s challenge is therefore under heightened scrutiny.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that the ’648 patent’s preamble is non‑limiting and that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. It also attacks the patent owner’s § 315(b) time‑bar defense.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s IPR against American GNC’s 6,671,648 patent was denied. The Board upheld its finding that claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Smith and Tingleff references, and rejected Nintendo’s secondary‑consideration and real‑party‑in‑interest arguments.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The USPTO denied Nintendo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00668, leaving the Board’s ruling in place.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB denied Nintendo’s petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs against American GNC’s patents, leaving the original rulings unchanged.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's '648 patent, arguing that its inertial measurement unit (IMU) technology is obvious. The petition cites multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in claims 1 and 4.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's angular rate sensor patent (6508122), arguing the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Fujiyoshi with Townsend or Cox renders the claimed technology predictable in the field of MEMS sensors.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo successfully petitioned for institution against American GNC Corporation's patent claims regarding Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural challenges raised by the Patent Owner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against American GNC Corporation regarding angular rate measurement technology (Patent 6508122). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 103, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1 and 3 of patent 6508122 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining multiple prior art references, including Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, and Townsend.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory business‑confidential provisions, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,317,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing that combinations of prior art references render the technology obvious. The petitioner focused on combining Astala/Shahoian for gesture recognition and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov for pressure determination techniques.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy challenged Purple Innovation's '733 Patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board has instituted the IPR proceedings, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for the challenger on at least one claim.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung’s post‑grant review of Oura’s smart‑ring patent (U.S. 11,874,702) was denied. The Board held that none of the 17 claims were obvious over the cited prior art, affirming the patent’s validity.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites successfully obtained institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point editing for real‑estate marketing, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and rejecting discretionary‑denial arguments.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Vermont Safety Developments LLC successfully defended its ski‑binding patent against Head Sport GmbH’s IPR petition. The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient in claim construction, §112(f) analysis, and obviousness particularity, and citing unfavorable discretionary factors.
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.