US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 216 of 286 · 8,574 total
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. challenged Delta Faucet Company's patent via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Tseng and Tse. The petitioner presented multiple grounds based on 103, targeting nearly all claims in the patent.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8093767) regarding vibration modules and haptics. The Petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 103.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent on Linear Resonant Vibration Modules (LRVMs) at the PTAB. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of patent 8649426 owned by VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references Perlman and Oguz teach known solutions for reducing video encoding latency, rendering the claimed methods unpatentable.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage Co. challenges The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents (10791808) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner presents multiple combinations of prior art, including Kane in view of Beckley, Pelz, and Matthews, to demonstrate the claimed features are predictable.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9,510,040). The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods and interfaces are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Kim, Lee-1, Choi, and Lee-2.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patents (8,050,321) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over established standards like MPEG-1 and prior art references such as Kim and Yagasaki. The petitioner asserts that existing technologies render the core inventive concepts of the patent predictable.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron Intellectual Property's vacuum cleaner patent (US 10,117,550). The petition asserted grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC challenged Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s patent claims regarding lens design and stray light reduction in a PTAB proceeding. The challenge centers on obviousness, arguing that the claimed 'light trap' structure is merely an predictable adaptation of prior art CN182.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious combinations of prior art standards like Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner asserts that industry standards already taught predictable methods for improving wireless efficiency and range.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent (10291449) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen, July 2005 WWiSE, and Choi, to demonstrate predictable improvements in wireless OFDM technology.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. challenges AX Wireless's '459 patent in an IPR petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art including Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner argues that the claimed OFDM techniques are predictable applications of known standards concepts to wireless transceiver architectures.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless's patent 10917272, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references including Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner successfully argued that the combination of known techniques renders the wireless communication claims unpatentable.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. filed an opening petition challenging AX Wireless's patent under 35 U.S.C. §103, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that the claimed OFDM transceiver design is predictable when combining known techniques from Hansen/WWiSE and Zhang/Maltsev.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Petitioner Dell Inc. challenges AX Wireless LLC's patent 9614566 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen/WWiSE and Zhang/Maltsev, to demonstrate that the claimed OFDM header repetition technology is anticipated by existing knowledge.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of InfoExpress's U.S. Patent No. 7,523,484 in the PTAB. The petitioners argue that the network access methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation against InfoExpress in District Court.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's patent (8117645) in the PTAB, arguing that claims related to Network Access Control are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate that combining known security and NAC techniques would have been routine for a POSITA.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed a Petition challenging 11 claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8578444) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann renders the claimed network access control features predictable to a POSITA.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco Systems challenges InfoExpress's patent (8677450) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining Krantz and Herrmann prior art references provides a predictable solution for enhanced network security and access control policy enforcement.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's 7523484 Patent in an IPR, asserting that the network security claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references (Krantz and Herrmann) disclose nearly identical architecture to the patented invention, making the claims unpatentable.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged Greenthread's patent on CMOS fabrication methods using multiple prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the merits strong, leading to institution of the petition.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged the '11121222 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (§103), arguing that prior art references like Kawagoe, Wieczorek, and Wolf render the semiconductor device claims unpatentable. The PTAB found the merits strong and determined that institution was warranted for review.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable and non-novel in advanced CMOS fabrication.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC filed an IPR challenging The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as USB charging and lithium battery protection, are predictable combinations of existing prior art in automotive electronics.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,607,407 related to cleaning appliances. The challenger asserts that the patent is unpatentable under both §102 (anticipation) and §103 (obviousness).
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
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.
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.