US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 230 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG challenged Everlight Electronics' Patent No. 9,640,733 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claimed LED carrier structure is unpatentable. The petitioner raised multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) against several prior art references. This challenge targets core structural elements of the light-emitting diode packaging.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA challenges the '802 Patent's claims (1, 2, 3, 8) in a Petition, asserting they are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. The Petitioner argues that various references, including Chen and Baker, disclose all elements of the claimed nasal application formulations.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent 8982109, challenging claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims (1-3 and 8) were anticipated by multiple prior art references, including Chen. The Board found that the prior art disclosed all claim elements, leading to a final decision of unpatentability.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that Wiz’s challenge to Orca’s ’685 patent succeeded, finding all 22 claims obvious over multiple cloud‑security references.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz successfully challenged Orca Security’s 11,663,031 patent covering virtual‑machine snapshot security. The PTAB found all 16 claims obvious over a combination of prior art references and declared them unpatentable.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all claims of its cloud‑virtualization patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board improperly introduced new evidence—misinterpreting Veselov’s description of a file system—as teaching the claimed virtual‑disk location, violating procedural rules.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB issued an errata to correct a grammatical mistake in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685. The correction clarifies the Board’s language about Hufsmith’s teaching on detecting sensitive data.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied director review petitions for two IPRs involving WIZ, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd., leaving the final written decisions unchanged.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its cloud‑security patent are unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board relied on new, unsupported evidence from Veselov, violating due‑process rules. The request seeks reversal of the Board’s decision.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00864 concerning patent 11,663,032.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging Jabaa, L.L.C.'s patent claims related to biometric customer authentication apparatus. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Mathiassen, Ryan, and Lim. The petitioner seeks to institute proceedings leading to the cancellation of all ten challenged claims.
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.