US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 264 of 291 · 8,722 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon’s request for a Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia’s patent 11,805,267, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent. Nokia argues the Board misapplied 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the prior art and arguments were already considered during prosecution.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their dispute with patent owner Implicit over U.S. Patent 8,056,075 B2. The PTAB granted a motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review request asking the USPTO to vacate the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its patent 11805267, alleging abuse of discretion and citing statutory and prior‑art grounds.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo challenged Ericsson's patent on IMSI encryption technologies before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on combinations of Nair and Forsberg, along with 3GPP standards, to demonstrate lack of non-obviousness. This petition asserts that existing knowledge made the claimed security enhancements predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of patent 8649426 owned by VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references Perlman and Oguz teach known solutions for reducing video encoding latency, rendering the claimed methods unpatentable.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage Co. challenges The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents (10791808) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner presents multiple combinations of prior art, including Kane in view of Beckley, Pelz, and Matthews, to demonstrate the claimed features are predictable.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One National Association filed an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent 8056075 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The petition asserts that the claims are rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references including Fowlow and Kimera.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (11805267), arguing that the claimed weighted bi-directional motion prediction is anticipated by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Karczewicz references to demonstrate that using higher precision for intermediate calculations was already known in the field.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenged Nokia's video coding patent (11805267) before the PTAB, arguing that the claimed methods are obvious over prior art references. The Board denied the petition, finding no basis for discretionary denial under §325(d).
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Ericsson's patent (10425817) covering 5G security protocols. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on combinations of prior art references, leading to a trial proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully secured the institution of its IPR against VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., challenging 13 claims related to low latency video conferencing over § 103 obviousness. The Board found compelling evidence that Cisco has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple independent and dependent claims, moving the dispute into active litigation.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully navigated the institution phase of its IPR against Nokia regarding video coding claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon could prove unpatentability under § 103, leading to the case being instituted for trial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's patent claims in an IPR proceeding regarding video coding and motion prediction technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art, leading to institution.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00686 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board previously denied a termination request, but the parties submitted a renewed motion.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00685 concerning AX Wireless's patent 10,079,707 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in federal court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,079,707, citing a settlement and the Board’s lack of merit decision. The motion invokes 35 U.S.C. §317 and requests confidentiality for the settlement documents.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00682 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00680 concerning patent 9,614,566 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review, citing a settlement and a joint dismissal stipulation. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,554,459 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00686 after reaching a settlement. The Board accepted the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
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.