US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 215 of 286 · 8,574 total
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
Intel Corporation initiated this Petition challenging the validity of Ericsson's patent (7151430), asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Taniguchi, Midya, and Raghavan to demonstrate that claimed features in inductive coupling/antenna design were already known or suggested.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. challenged claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that the claimed VOD navigation structure was predictable by combining elements from prior art references like Kim, Hunt, and TechnoBuffalo.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. challenged the patentability of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s claims regarding adaptive display systems in intelligent televisions. The petitioner argues that these GUI elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references Lider and Eibl.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned PTAB to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging claims related to power management in integrated circuits. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. initiated this Petition challenging the patentability of MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s claims related to Power Management/DVFS technology. The petitioner asserts multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103) based on combinations of prior art references like Nowka, Borkar, Nicol, and Iyengar.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung filed a Petition challenging Maxell's patent (US 11223757) on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the claimed camera delay mechanisms are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Chinn, Takahashi, and EX-V7.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Eagle View Technologies' patent 10671648. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Harris and Florance. This challenge focuses on geo-temporal database indexing and querying methods.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Petition challenging key claims of Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The challenger argues that the claimed power supply apparatus is rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references in DC-DC Converters technology.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's '907 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references including Goldenberg and Levin. The petitioner asserted compelling evidence of unpatentability across all 20 claims based on various grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT, Inc. filed a Petition challenging all 20 claims of Medtronic's '483 Patent based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Watson and Schwartz—render the implantable drug delivery device unpatentable.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Soto, Alexander et al.
AT&T Corp. et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against the '754 Patent, challenging 30 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The Board found strong merits in the petition, noting that the combination of prior art references was highly relevant to Passive Optical Networks (PONs).
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA challenges the '802 Patent's claims (1, 2, 3, 8) in a Petition, asserting they are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. The Petitioner argues that various references, including Chen and Baker, disclose all elements of the claimed nasal application formulations.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully petitioned to challenge WellcomeMat's patent claims regarding online video cue point management. The PTAB institution decision was based on multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn Corporation filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of patent 10715878, arguing they are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Baig and Laidlaw to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in targeted advertising and device association technology.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. petitioned the PTAB challenging AX Wireless LLC's patent (11212146) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are rendered obvious by either a single prior art reference (Yu) or a combination of Hansen and WWiSE.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against Cobblestone Wireless's '802 Patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art standards like IEEE 802.11n D2.0 and Shearer.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), leading to institution. The petition asserted multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Vinciarelli-218, Zeng-014, Park, and Jun.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation challenged Delta Electronics' '263 Patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims 1-6 are anticipated (102) and obvious (103). The petitioner relies heavily on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Vinciarelli and Zeng patents, to demonstrate unpatentability.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
BTL Industries successfully petitioned to challenge InMode Ltd.'s patent on urogenital tissue tightening methods. The PTAB found compelling merits in the petition, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation challenged Delta Electronics' patent (8711580) in the PTAB, arguing that the resonant converter technology is obvious based on prior art publications. The petitioner successfully secured institution under §325(d) and §314(a), advancing its challenge to the Patent Owner.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo challenged Ericsson's patent on IMSI encryption technologies before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on combinations of Nair and Forsberg, along with 3GPP standards, to demonstrate lack of non-obviousness. This petition asserts that existing knowledge made the claimed security enhancements predictable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO challenges Multimedia Technologies' patent via an IPR petition, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger combines several prior art references—including Melnychenko and Chen—to argue that the claimed metadata management features are predictable to a POSITA.
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.