US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 214 of 286 · 8,574 total
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. filed an opening petition challenging the validity of Infogation Corp.'s patent (6292743), focusing on obviousness under 103. The challenge targets claims related to route guidance and ITS architecture, citing extensive prior art from government documents and international patents.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. filed an opening petition to challenge Infogation Corp.'s patent (US 10107628) in the PTAB, alleging anticipation and obviousness of navigation system claims. The petitioner asserts that prior art, particularly JP973, discloses methods for using artistic maps with coordinate transformation for destination selection.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent 7640160, arguing that Claim 12 is obvious over prior art references Kennewick and Ross. The petition asserts that combining the disclosures of these two patents renders the claimed knowledge-enhanced speech recognition engine predictable.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,849,652 held by Dialect LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references, primarily Coffman and Kennewick. This challenge relates to speech recognition and conversational AI systems.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent (8447607) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petition targets 15 claims related to conversational AI, arguing the technology is well-known in speech-enabled interfaces.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's patent 7693720 in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Coffman and Zadrozny to demonstrate that the claimed speech recognition features were conventional knowledge for a POSITA.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent 9031845, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge centers on whether combining existing conversational AI and distributed computing prior art renders the claimed speech-enabled vehicle functions predictable.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's U.S. Patent No. 8,015,006 B2 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed speech recognition and domain agent methods are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Zadrozny.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's patent (7502738) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Coffman with Kanevsky and Ronning predictably renders the claimed conversational AI features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209 held by Dialect LLC, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing conversational AI prior art. The petition details multiple grounds of obviousness (Grounds 1-5), combining references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Redfern to demonstrate predictability in speech recognition techniques.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla (Petitioner) challenged Autonomous Devices' patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Buibas and Grotmol. The Board found factors favoring institution, meaning the case will proceed to the merits phase.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges EMKinetics' patent on tremor treatment using electrical stimulation, arguing that prior art references Gesotti and Burnett render all claims obvious or anticipated. The petitioner details how these older devices satisfy every limitation of the claimed apparatus and method for treating neurological conditions like tremor.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas challenges SitePro's patent (11,294,403) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, arguing that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez. The PTAB has instituted the case, allowing the merits of the anticipation and obviousness arguments to proceed.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. filed an opening petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s Patent No. 10,488,871 in the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn and Gutierrez.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. challenged SitePro's patent (11726504) via a Petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Cardamone or Kahn under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petitioner also argues for obviousness based on combining prior art with SCADA under § 103.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group challenges SitePro's patent (9898014) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are either anticipated by Kahn or rendered obvious when combining Kahn with Gutierrez.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s patent (9342078) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Almadi, Gutierrez, and SCADA. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are fully disclosed by these references in the field of Industrial Automation.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,574,725 on grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger argues that the claimed method for multimedia distribution is rendered obvious by combining prior art references like Garfinkle and Kosten. This challenge relates to Digital Content Delivery/Video-on-Demand technology.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.
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.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges the validity of EMKinetics' '669 patent by asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Gesotti and Burnett. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology for tremor treatment is already disclosed in the prior art, presenting multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Multiple major carriers (AT&T, Ericsson, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent covering base station apparatus for transport block segmentation. The challengers argue the claims are anticipated and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 using prior art references Lee and Zheng.
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.