US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 87 · 2,587 total
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Ilooda Co., Ltd. and Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged the validity of Serendia, LLC's '836 patent in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, and Lee.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla challenges Graphite Charging Company's patent (8,291,243) in an IPR proceeding, arguing the claims are invalid. The petition asserts grounds of obviousness over prior art references Wang, AESO Report, and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
Tesla challenges Relink US LLC's '755 Patent in an IPR, alleging that the claims are anticipated by Serban and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petition details multiple grounds under 102 and 103 across all 20 claims, focusing on grid-tied photovoltaic power management systems.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple challenges THL Holding Company's patent on location and tracking systems via an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art elements from mobile communication devices and Bluetooth technology. This action is part of ongoing litigation between the parties in District Court.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
A coalition of major telecom companies (AT&T, Ericsson, Nokia, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent 10841958. The challenge asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Lee and Brismar.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
HP Inc. et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 in a petition asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art references (Lane, Pogue, MIT, Hotelling, Segawa). The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely predictable combinations of existing technology in portable computing devices.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (8284690) in an IPR, arguing that the claimed wireless ranging and communication methods were anticipated or obvious by existing standards like IEEE-802.16 and DOCSIS-2.0. The challenge utilized multiple grounds of invalidity based on various prior art references including Waxman, Won, and Zuckerman.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast challenges Entropic's '518 patent, arguing that the multi-carrier modulation and bit-loading technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that prior art references (Afshary, Mirfakhraei, Welles) combine to render all four claimed methods unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (9210362) in an IPR, asserting that the wideband receiver architecture is anticipated or obvious. The petitioner relies on various prior art references, including Zhang and Mirabbasi, to invalidate claims covering digital signal processing methods.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR challenging the validity of Entropic's wideband receiver system patent (9210362). The petitioner argues that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references like Petrovic and Eidson.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362) in an IPR, arguing the claimed digital signal processing methods are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Pugel and Crols to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11,381,866) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combining Cholas and Petrovic with references like Rabaey, Maalej, Lee, and Takahiko to demonstrate non-patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully requested the institution of an IPR against Entropic Communications' '866 Patent, challenging all 82 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner asserts that numerous elements are disclosed by prior art references like Pugel, Crols, Chandrakasan, and Jensen ’170.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications (Petitioner) challenges the validity of Entropic's patent, asserting that the claimed method for receiving digitized television signals is anticipated and obvious. The petition relies heavily on prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey to demonstrate multiple grounds of invalidity under 102 and 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR, arguing that prior art renders the core signal monitoring and reporting claims obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of references like Kamieniecki and Konstantinos to demonstrate that the claimed technology is a predictable evolution of existing cable television systems.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast initiated an IPR against Entropic's '759 patent, challenging all 23 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The challenger argues that combinations of prior art references—including Gurantz and Grube—render the methods for bit-loading modulation unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic's '775 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art references. The petition details multiple combinations of references (e.g., Rabenko/Gaspar) to establish non-obviousness across numerous claim sets in the cable modem technology space.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed GUI features are merely predictable combinations of prior art from Reavey, Chandhri, and Preppernau.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft et al. filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '315 patent on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed features are merely combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Chandhri. This challenges core aspects of computer interface design in portable devices.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '8612888 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petition argues that the claimed digital media management methods are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Martinez. This challenges core aspects of the patent's validity in computing devices technology.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that all twenty claims are unpatentable by combining various prior art references, including Pröll and Preppernau.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft et al. filed a Petition challenging the validity of LiTL LLC's patent 10564818, asserting that all eight challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition centers on GUI functionality in portable computing modes, arguing combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
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.