US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 219 of 291 · 8,722 total
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The IPRs concerning Patent 8,924,543 were terminated after Verizon Wireless and other carriers reached a settlement with Headwater Research. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, and AT&T have settled with Headwater Research and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 8,924,543, ending the proceeding before any merits decision.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless and other carriers settled with Headwater Research, leading to the termination of an IPR over patent 8,924,543 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components challenged US Conec Ltd.'s patent covering fiber optic connector designs, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition targets multiple claims using grounds based on Section 103 (obviousness).
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's patent claims, arguing that Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts obviousness based on combinations of prior art references related to signal processing and RF down-conversion.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed a Petition challenging key claims of GoPro's patent covering horizon leveling and video stabilization techniques. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Thomason, Pacurariu, Watanabe, Voss, and Derbanne.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA et al. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, challenging 21 claims related to retail inventory management. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references using computer vision techniques.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless filed an IPR petition challenging 40 claims of a network service plan provisioning system, asserting obviousness over prior art references Poh, Maes, and Burnett. The challenge centers on whether combining these existing technologies would motivate the claimed dynamic policy updates in wireless networks.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision challenges GoPro's '413 patent claims 1-20 under § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed non-uniform image scaling techniques are obvious combinations of existing prior art, specifically citing Meulen and Chao. This petition targets core functionality in panoramic image processing.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging patent 7428082, arguing that several claims are unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga to demonstrate obviousness. The PTAB found factors favoring institution, allowing the review process to proceed.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. successfully challenged Headwater Research LLC's patent (8924543) on grounds of obviousness, leading to the institution of the IPR proceeding. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references Poh and Maes rendered the claimed network service provisioning system obvious.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
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.