US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 215 of 291 · 8,722 total
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that Smith Interface Technologies' claims were obvious. The Board found no persuasive evidence in the prior art combination to support the claimed progressive blurring or menu appearance during gesture detection.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 B2 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that various combinations of prior art references taught or suggested the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions and structures.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found that the claimed deodorant stick compositions were anticipated or obvious over various combinations of prior art references. This decision heavily favors the Petitioner, Dr. Squatch, LLC, by invalidating the patent's scope.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Choulis, Sugiura, and Thompson. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'matrix material' and found multiple grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the claims patentable over the cited prior art. The Petitioner (Apple Inc.) failed to demonstrate that combining Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording would teach a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art how to implement the claimed translucent virtual display layer widget overlaying image content.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found claims related to gesture-equipped touch screens unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley) taught all limitations through predictable results.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The Board upheld the validity of Oura Health's smart ring patent against Samsung Electronics in a Final Written Decision. The Panel found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art combining physical activity monitoring and wearable input devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their PTAB IPR dispute over a photovoltaic inverter patent and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, ending the proceeding before institution.
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.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on touch interface technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious, combining known elements related to duration-based gestures and tactile feedback from prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to dynamic background appearance changes on touch screens. The core argument is that these claims are obvious, relying on combinations of prior art such as Hackborn and Westerman. This challenges the scope of protection for advanced gesture recognition technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding touch screen interface claims. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This paves the way for a full trial on key mobile computing patents.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent 10656755. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 claims challenged).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found that the combination of Hackborn's live wallpaper concept with Westerman's gesture recognition methods rendered several claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Claims 1 and 23 were deemed unpatentable based on this combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple filed an authorized response opposing Smith Interface’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly applied obviousness law to the touch‑and‑hold gesture combination. The Board’s factual findings and motivation‑to‑combine analysis were supported by extensive record evidence and expert testimony.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple challenges the obviousness finding of U.S. Patent 10,656,758 covering touch‑gesture menus. The patent owner requests Director Review, arguing the Board relied on hindsight and lacked a proper motivation for combining prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung successfully challenged Staton Techiya’s echo‑cancelling ear‑piece patent. The PTAB found all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, leaving the decision against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,683,643, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and ST CasesTech entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without a final decision. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,683,643 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. is facing a Director Review request from Smith Interface Technologies in IPR2024-01088. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition and scaling (U.S. Patent No. 10,936,114). Petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Kim, Lang, Burrough, and Bowens. The dispute involves fundamental technology used in modern touch screen interfaces.
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.