US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 251 of 286 · 8,574 total
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds (Grounds 1-6). The patent, related to vehicle leveling systems using smart devices, was deemed potentially invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combining prior art references like Thorpe and Clark.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a dozer stabilizer patent (10533300). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds based on Funk and Lewis.
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Barco N.V., challenging patent 11422951 on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Uchida and Grimshaw, leading to the continuation of the dispute.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V., challenging nine claims of patent 10762002 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail, citing combinations of prior art references like Kaplan and Ahmed to establish unpatentability.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Yealink against Barco, challenging 5 claims related to electronic tools for meetings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the combination of prior art references Kaplan and Mardiks.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in its IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent (US 11069737). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits against both Haddad138 and Yap regarding image sensor technology claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB denied SAP's request to institute IPR against Cyandia's patent (8751948), citing copending district court litigation in Texas. The Board determined the overlapping issues made IPR redundant.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging claims in a seed carrier patent (9745123). The Patent Owner successfully demonstrated that their prototype predated the prior art references cited by the Petitioner.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
The PTAB denied Par-Kan Company's IPR against Unverferth Mfg. Co.'s patent 8967940, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references like Morris and Hiniker Webpage.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent (11223601), challenging all 16 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were sufficiently compelling, leading to a trial phase.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute trial against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent claims related to genomic sequencing and analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1, allowing the IPR to proceed despite extensive prior art challenges under Sections 102 and 103.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied the request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patent 9179359 between Samsung and Headwater Research.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung challenged Headwater's patent (9179359) in an IPR proceeding focused on network traffic control claims. The PTAB granted institution, allowing Samsung to proceed with its § 103 obviousness challenge against Claim 26 using Shell and Cole prior art.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a vaporizing smoking article patent, citing the existence and advanced stage of a parallel ITC investigation.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review of an institution decision in a vaping patent case, vacating the original ruling and sending it back to the Board. The parties must now address discretionary denial under Fintiv factors considering a parallel ITC proceeding.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. successfully challenged RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.'s patent on electrically heated smoking articles. The PTAB instituted the IPR after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Morgan and Takeuchi.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC regarding semiconductor fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.
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.