US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 238 of 291 · 8,722 total
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,263,509 held by Optronic Sciences, LLC. The petition asserts that the patent claims related to OLED pixel structure are anticipated (102) or obvious (103) over various combinations of prior art references. This challenges the validity of key display technology patents.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's LED backlighting patents (7168842) based on anticipation and obviousness. The challenge targets claims 3-9, arguing that combinations of prior art references like Uekusa and Isoda render the claimed technology unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging patent 7969990 held by S.M.R Innovations LTD, asserting that the claimed mobile device connectivity and data rerouting technology is obvious over prior art. The challenge focuses on combining references like Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging several claims of S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.'s patent related to streaming data routing and Bluetooth connectivity. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references, including Chihara, BluetoothSpec, Everett, and Chang. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc. has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,547,648, asserting that its claims related to media routing and streaming are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Zhang, Fillebrown, Pasanen, and Skinner, to demonstrate unpatentability.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,699,223, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art in media streaming and routing. The petition focuses on combining Zhang's framework with Moore's concepts to enable enhanced user control and device selection capabilities.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against Nokia's patent (8036273), allowing Amazon to proceed with its obviousness arguments. The Board found that the combination of prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto plausibly teaches the claimed sub-pixel interpolation methods.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Nokia's patent (7280599) regarding video compression and sub-pixel interpolation. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto, leading to the institution of all 51 challenged claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nokia's video compression patents based on obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for unpatentability. This decision sets a significant precedent in challenging complex technical claims using combined software/hardware disclosures.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully challenged five claims of Optronic Sciences LLC's '9406733 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds. The Board issued an institution decision after construing the key term 'auxiliary electrode' to include bus lines and wires.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences, LLC regarding display technology patents. The Board granted institution after a favorable claim construction of 'auxiliary electrode,' finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's patent, leading to a trial decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding at least one challenged claim (5-9).
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR petition against S.M.R Innovations, finding no reasonable likelihood that the 'apparatus for rerouting data' patent would be invalidated based on prior art references like Chihara and BluetoothSpec.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding several claims, focusing on how prior art combines to teach all limitations of the asserted claims in data routing and multimedia transmission technology.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 8,858,534.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,806,554. An unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding has been filed, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00952, leaving the earlier denial of institution unchanged. The proceeding therefore remains denied.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
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.