US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 259 of 286 · 8,574 total
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge nine claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited excessive parallel filings and lack of conciseness in arguments as the reason for denying institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s motion to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was granted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over Ahn and Chaudhri for numerous claims related to gesture recognition and user interface transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references Ahn and Chaudhri.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Smith Interface Technologies' patent, citing the need for judicial efficiency despite the complex claim structure. The Board determined that only three of seven concurrent petitions were justified.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully petitioned PTAB to challenge Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10966915), leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a material error in allowing claims over prior art like Lesniak and Native/Bianchi '254.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned against Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent, leading the PTAB to institute the case after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board found multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) across various claims using combinations of prior art references.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Aylo Freesites Ltd in challenging WellcomeMat's patentability. The challenge focused on claim 17, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Head Sport GmbH against Vermont Safety Developments LLC regarding ski binding systems. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing without an agreed-upon claim construction for 'release logic.'
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned to institute IPR against BuzzBallz, LLC regarding container design patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Kick. Trial is now pending for the challenged claims.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully had its IPR petition instituted against Pictiva Displays International Limited regarding OLED technology claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on obviousness over prior art 'Ma'.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's touch screen patent (10936114). The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds across multiple claims using four prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding touch screen interface claims. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This paves the way for a full trial on key mobile computing patents.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that numerous claims in Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent were obvious over various prior art combinations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds presented, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent 10656755. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 claims challenged).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to graphical user interfaces and touch screen manipulation. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge a patent from Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board utilized its discretion to deny institution because this petition was ranked last among seven parallel challenges.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully obtained institution at the PTAB against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan, leading to an institutional decision.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-based touch interfaces. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple's claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley. This decision sets the stage for a full trial on patent validity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a high-stakes IPR concerning wearable biosensor technology, specifically smart rings. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102) to proceed with trial on 17 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims. This denial was based on procedural rules regarding pre-institution claim disclaimer.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR challenge against Oura Health's '859 Patent. The Board found that the second challenge, based on prior art including Schröder and Mestas, met the threshold for obviousness (103).
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against E-Vision Optics regarding claims in the '541 patent, overcoming arguments related to parallel litigation and statutory bars. The Board found that the Petitioner provided sufficient mitigation via a Sotera stipulation, allowing the obviousness challenge to proceed.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned for institution against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding patent 8801174, which covers smart eyeglasses technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent (10613355). The Board found that Luxottica demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103) across all 21 challenged claims.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for smaXtec Inc. against ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC after finding sufficient evidence of unpatentability in several claims. The Board specifically found that Claim 5 was anticipated by Harvey and determined there was a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal.
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.