US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 265 of 291 · 8,722 total
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,291,449, citing a settlement agreement and the Board’s authority to end proceedings before a final decision.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR challenging patent 10,291,449 B2, before any trial was instituted.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,291,449 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
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 termination motions and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and Dell Technologies jointly moved to terminate the IPR against AX Wireless’s 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 jointly moved to terminate an IPR over patent 10,917,272 after reaching a settlement. The Board accepted the joint request under 35 U.S.C. §317.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight IPRs before they were instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia Corp. and BX LED LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,567,988 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO challenges Multimedia Technologies' patent via an IPR petition, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger combines several prior art references—including Melnychenko and Chen—to argue that the claimed metadata management features are predictable to a POSITA.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9,510,040). The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods and interfaces are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Kim, Lee-1, Choi, and Lee-2.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious combinations of prior art standards like Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner asserts that industry standards already taught predictable methods for improving wireless efficiency and range.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent (10291449) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen, July 2005 WWiSE, and Choi, to demonstrate predictable improvements in wireless OFDM technology.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. challenges AX Wireless's '459 patent in an IPR petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art including Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner argues that the claimed OFDM techniques are predictable applications of known standards concepts to wireless transceiver architectures.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless's patent 10917272, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references including Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner successfully argued that the combination of known techniques renders the wireless communication claims unpatentable.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. filed an opening petition challenging AX Wireless's patent under 35 U.S.C. §103, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that the claimed OFDM transceiver design is predictable when combining known techniques from Hansen/WWiSE and Zhang/Maltsev.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Petitioner Dell Inc. challenges AX Wireless LLC's patent 9614566 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen/WWiSE and Zhang/Maltsev, to demonstrate that the claimed OFDM header repetition technology is anticipated by existing knowledge.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the validity of BX LED LLC's patent (8567988) based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art, specifically Cao753 and Baek/Cao630, discloses all or elements of the claimed LED packaging technology.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the '805 patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily over a combination of prior art references Melnychenko and Chen. Key claim constructions favored the Petitioner, particularly regarding 'pre-defined format' as merely an order of data/metadata.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-14) were patentable over the prior art. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction of key terms like 'based on,' requiring temporal dependency on currently displayed content.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
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.