US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 218 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has challenged a patent covering image enhancement and object detection methods before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining known face detection techniques with existing image processing apparatuses renders all 12 claimed methods unpatentable under Section 103. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation involving Google LLC in district court.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge a patent covering image processing techniques, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against E-Vision Optics regarding claims in the '541 patent, overcoming arguments related to parallel litigation and statutory bars. The Board found that the Petitioner provided sufficient mitigation via a Sotera stipulation, allowing the obviousness challenge to proceed.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned for institution against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding patent 8801174, which covers smart eyeglasses technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent (10613355). The Board found that Luxottica demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103) across all 21 challenged claims.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA successfully petitioned to have Bell Northern Research's wireless communication patents instituted for obviousness under § 103. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, including Jones and 802.11a, renders multiple claims unpatentable. This institution decision sets a strong precedent regarding OFDM technology in wireless communications.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica successfully petitioned to institute IPR against E-Vision Optics regarding eyewear technology, overcoming initial procedural hurdles. The Board found that Petitioner adequately established a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation for key claims based on prior art references.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited regarding image processing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the patent's claims are unpatentable under obviousness over prior art references, moving the case toward substantive examination.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase in this IPR, securing institution on several claims related to color balance correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Claim 1 based on combinations of prior art references (Yano and Schröder).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent US 8355574 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The PTAB granted institution, moving the case into the merits phase where Google will argue that all 12 claims are unpatentable.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC's IPR petition against a patent covering image processing methods was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art references like Luo-250.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The Board found the claims unpatentable under 103(a) over Goossens2003 and Drake. The decision hinged on demonstrating that an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine a Network-on-Chip (NoC) architecture with a Quality of Service (QoS) management system for resource optimization.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 26 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features of smart eyewear were taught by combinations of prior art references, including Jannard, Rosenblatt, Chen, and Nielsen. This final decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the wearable technology space.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combinations of prior art references, such as Howell-596 and Howell-158, rendered the claimed features in smart eyeglasses obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for a majority of challenged claims (Claims 1–9 and 12–19) based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board relied heavily on prior art references, notably Brunton, to establish these findings in the field of smart eyeglasses electronics integration.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims of the electronic eyewear system unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as Howell-719 and Sikonowiz, rendered the claimed invention obvious across various claim sets.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that 33 out of 37 challenged claims were unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. Key findings included the rejection of Petitioner's argument regarding 'hermetically sealed' meaning waterproof, and successful challenges using multiple prior art combinations like Howell-596/Howell-833/Blum-741.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review of US Patent 11,906,794 after reaching a settlement, citing resolved disputes and early‑stage proceedings.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a request to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the Board review.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over a magnetic‑connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,880,075. The parties jointly requested the settlement be kept confidential and moved to withdraw the petition, ending the proceeding.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 and jointly moved to withdraw the inter partes review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against ParkerVision’s ’528 mixed‑signal chip patent, covering 30 claims, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel TI IPR.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) submits a response urging the Director to deny GoPro’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied obviousness analysis to the Thomason and Voss references and that GoPro’s new arguments are forfeited or lack a nexus. No procedural error is identified, and the Director should reject the review.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s finding that Insta360’s claims 7‑8 and 17‑18 are unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis, ignored unpredictable‑effect evidence, and misinterpreted claim language.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter‑partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The USPTO denied Insta360’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on GoPro’s camera patent (US 11,336,832). The denial leaves the original PTAB ruling in place.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against NXP’s challenge to ParkerVision’s ’177 patent, focusing on claim 14, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel Texas Instruments IPR.
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.