US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 217 of 291 · 8,722 total
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Maxeon Solar, challenging claims related to solar cell fabrication. The Board found that Canadian Solar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds over various prior art combinations. This sets up a high-stakes trial in advanced photovoltaic technology.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc.'s IPR petition against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to support its arguments regarding prior art combinations in solar cell technology.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted Qualcomm’s joinder request and instituted inter partes review of Network System Technologies’ NoC patent, covering claims 2,6,9‑16.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the IPR, and the parties seek confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Northern Research entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01044 covering patent RE48,629. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc., Brødrene Hartmann A/S, and The Happy Group Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01037 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent owner Maurice J.P. Tabone. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its discretionary authority.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,506,554 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP and Bell Northern Research have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 48629.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group settled their IPR dispute with inventor Maurice Tabone over Patent 10,287,070. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against a 7,454,056 LCD patent was terminated after the Patent Owner disclaimed all remaining claims, prompting the Board to enter an adverse judgment against the owner.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
Qualcomm challenged Network System Technologies' patent claims related to resource management in Network on Chip (NoC) technology. The petitioner asserts that the claimed functionality is obvious over prior art references by combining known networking techniques.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela LLC filed a Petition challenging 22 claims of patent 8858534 related to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT). The petitioners assert grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on combinations of prior art references, including Risk, Watson, Hunt, Lina, and Dolliver. The petition was successfully instituted by the Board.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela LLC has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging key patents related to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) systems held by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging E-Vision Smart Optics' '960 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petitioner asserts that foundational concepts like voice commands and proximity detection were disclosed much earlier by competitors. This action targets 26 claims based on combinations of patents including Jannard-740 and Rosenblatt.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. filed a petition challenging E-Vision Optics' patent claims related to smart eyewear, asserting that the patents are invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known components and predictable arrangements disclosed in prior art references render nearly all claims unpatentable.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent covering smart eyewear with integrated electronics. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references render the challenged claims invalid under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica has filed an IPR challenging 21 claims of E-Vision Optics' patent regarding embedded electronics in eyewear frames. The petitioner argues that these claims are obvious over decades-old prior art, which discloses generic components and known electronic techniques.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA challenges Bell Northern Research's patent covering ELTS technology under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining various prior art references, including Jones and Zelst/Boer, renders the claimed features obvious in the context of WiFi standards. This IPR targets 19 claims related to OFDM training sequences.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. 10,287,070 regarding its container design features. Petitioners assert that the claimed elements are obvious over prior art references Beese and King in the food packaging field.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. has challenged E-Vision Optics' patent on smart eyeglasses, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated by existing prior art. The petition targets 37 claims across multiple grounds of invalidity (102 and 103).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has filed a Petition challenging claims related to portrait mode image processing, asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner argues that combining existing techniques like background blurring with sharpness enhancement renders the patented invention obvious.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of patent 7454056, which covers color balance correction and face detection technologies. The Petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Yano, Schroder, Kuwata, and Nakamura. This challenge targets core image processing methods used in digital imaging.
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.