US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 256 of 286 · 8,574 total
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to Cyclic Diversity Systems (OFDM), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically found deficiencies in meeting the duration requirements when comparing cyclic advance against prior art disclosures like Larsson and IEEE.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the '656 patent, challenging claims related to barocaloric cooling agents. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of 'organic material,' supporting the Petitioner's argument that the claimed invention is unpatentable over prior art references like Mañosa and Patel.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The PTAB denied Arista Networks' petition to review Orckit Corporation's patent (7545740) because the arguments and prior art were substantially identical to those previously presented in related IPR proceedings.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim based on obviousness. The Board specifically found evidence supporting Claim 1 over Lai and Hasegawa, while also noting inconclusive findings regarding Tsuji/Huang combinations.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 B2 is likely unpatentable over prior art references Fukui and Sedor. The Board instituted the IPR on all 47 challenged claims based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 B2 before the PTAB, leading to institution of trial. The petition asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art references Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
LENOVO failed its IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II's patent covering integrated circuit calibration, as the Board found Petitioner could not overcome key limitations of the claims using prior art. The denial centered on insufficient accounting for a three-dimensional 'valid operation range.'
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully navigated a discretionary denial challenge in the IPR, leading to the institution of claims 34-46. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success based on Yamazaki/Fujimori combinations for OLED encapsulation technology.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's patent (11667203) covering jump start/battery charging systems. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite the Patent Owner's counterarguments regarding technical limitations.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Belden Canada ULC's patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation over prior art references including Fukui. The Board found Petitioner’s arguments persuasive regarding the technical scope of the modular fiber optic cassette system.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ZipString LLC regarding string shooting devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds, specifically addressing whether YouTube videos qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical regarding a neurotomy system patent (10925664). The Board found reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds, targeting claims 1-29.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy patent (10736688). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical, LLC's '688 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) using prior art combinations like Racz and Lee.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Stratus Medical's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed RF neurotomy features could be achieved by combining existing prior art references.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for 9912914, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on all challenged obviousness grounds (103). The petitioner argued that combinations of prior art references—including Yerazunis, Fiore, Ely, and Lewellen—would render claims 1-23 obvious to a POSITA.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola vs. Stellar IPR, ultimately denying institution based on Fintiv factors favoring denial due to substantial parallel proceeding investment.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining prior art references would teach the challenged limitations, moving the case toward substantive obviousness analysis.
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.