US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 257 of 286 · 8,574 total
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions vs. Stellar, LLC IPR, ultimately denying institution because substantial investment had already occurred in the parallel district court proceeding.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR trial on all grounds for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC, finding persuasive arguments that claims are unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Board found specific teachings in Yerazunis and Fiore supported the obviousness of key claims regarding surveillance data recording.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review of an institution decision and subsequently denied the IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, LLC. The denial was based on Fintiv factors favoring dismissal due to extensive prior litigation in district court.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director denied institution of IPRs in four related proceedings involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar, citing the substantial investment already made in a parallel district court infringement trial.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to a trial decision. The Board found that Hanwha demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite arguments regarding prior art scope and predictability.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent (11251315). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 10-20 over combinations of prior art references like Choi, Granek, and Marvin.
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH challenged Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's '729 patent, asserting obviousness of claims related to orally disintegrating corticosteroids for GI tract inflammation. The PTAB declined to deny the petition, finding that additional evidence warranted reconsideration of prior art references like Dohil and FDA Guidance.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. successfully challenged claims of the '315 patent, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings. The challenge focused on obviousness over combinations of prior art in solar cell fabrication techniques.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged the validity of a network communications patent (US 10602448) based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding sufficient likelihood for petitioner to prevail on at least one claim.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenge targets core P2P networking and video streaming claims against THROUGHTEK CO., LTD.'s patent.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR challenges against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11740926). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Veselov and Mohanty regarding cloud security methods.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision successfully convinced the PTAB that GoPro's video stabilization patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have combined prior art teachings from Zhou and Kwatra to achieve better stabilization techniques. This decision establishes a significant challenge to the validity of key features in modern video processing patents.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Lenovo and Motorola against Headwater Research, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Solaris against Masaba's aggregate handling patent (11780689), finding a reasonable likelihood that key claims are obvious over Waldner and Dynatek.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.'s IPR challenge against California Institute of Technology et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient support for key prior art disclosures in Saxonov from the provisional application, leading to a failure to establish unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. failed to institute an IPR against California Institute of Technology et al.'s patent covering multiplexed analyte detection. The Board found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient support for key disclosures in the asserted prior art (Saxonov) during the initial petition phase.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB decided to institute IPR proceedings against a deodorant/antiperspirant patent, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims. The decision validates the use of multiple prior art references in personal care compositions for obviousness challenges.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully instituted an IPR against Nokia regarding video compression standards, arguing that MPEG-1 teaches or suggests the claimed quantization methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success despite initial claim construction disputes over sequence vs. picture parameters.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully challenged The Procter & Gamble Company's patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability for key deodorant compositions. The Board found that prior art references taught sufficient motivation to combine elements across different personal care fields.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in light of prior art references Zhou and Cai.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in view of Bell and Shi. The Board adopted a functional construction of the key parameter.
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Pakage Apparel's '974 patent based on obviousness over prior art combinations (Kitsch/Brocks). The PTAB declined discretionary denial because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to demonstrate material error in prosecution history.
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.