US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 267 of 286 · 8,574 total
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Dialect LLC's patent, challenging claims related to Natural Language Processing and Conversational AI. The Board found that prior art disclosure regarding context stack synchronization was sufficient to warrant further review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent, arguing that Claim 12 is obvious over a combination of prior art references. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine the teachings of Kennewick and Ross for trial on merits.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art (Coffman, Kennewick, Ross). The Board agreed with the Patent Owner that the prior art disclosures were too high-level to support the combination claimed.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully initiated an IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent (9031845) covering natural language speech processing in vehicles. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references like Coffman, Julia, and Cooper.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's IPR against Dialect LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness related to natural language speech processing in vehicles.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent on conversational AI was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Ronning.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute IPR against Dialect LLC's speech-interface patent (8015006). The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla successfully argued that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, leading to the Board's decision to institute IPR trial. The petitioner focused on combining spiking neural network techniques with autonomous robotic operation for improved efficiency and task specialization. This institution sets up a high-stakes technical battle regarding AI implementation in robotics.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Dialect LLC's speech recognition patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its unpatentability grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision maintains the validity of the '7398209 patent in the context of ongoing district court litigation.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Digital Media Technology Holdings regarding patent 7574725. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for key terms like 'distributing' and 'exhibiting,' favoring the Petitioner’s interpretation over the Patent Owner’s narrow industry definitions. This sets a favorable precedent for interpreting media technology claims broadly in PTAB proceedings.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Samsung against Maxell regarding video management systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Horn and Baumgartner. This moves the case into substantive examination on obviousness grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Paul Poniatowski's patent were likely obvious over prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong). The Board granted institution of IPR proceedings, moving the dispute toward trial in the District Court.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully challenged patent claims related to inductor design and RF transceivers in an IPR proceeding against Ericsson et al. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness based on the Taniguchi prior art.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon's attempt to invalidate Nokia's video compression patent (8204134) failed at the PTAB. The Board denied institution, finding that Amazon could not prove obviousness over prior art like Yagasaki.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB denied VIZIO's request to challenge Multimedia Technologies' patent (9,232,168) because a key claim term ('a different user interface device') was found to be indefinite. The Board ruled it could not assess obviousness without clear claim scope.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references related to integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID's patent 8253438. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing obviousness over prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno, particularly regarding the 'plurality of power islands' limitation.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging all 64 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that MediaTek demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by combining prior art references Nowka and Borkar in the field of integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR challenge against MOSAID regarding power management technology. Despite a dissenting judge arguing for reasonable likelihood based on Nowka and Borkar, the Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or intrinsic support for its obviousness theories.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s patent claims related to camera control systems. The Board declined discretionary denial despite parallel district court litigation because the petitioner agreed not to assert the same grounds there.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation's IPR petition against Delta Electronics was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness. The Board cited insufficient support for combining prior art references and noted that the petitioner employed impermissible hindsight.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Nearmap US against Eagle View Technologies regarding a property database patent (10671648). The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to provide a detailed, non-bare-quotation explanation linking prior art disclosures to the challenged claims.
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.