US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 280 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against Collision Communications was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board specifically cited deficiencies in how Samsung addressed critical limitations within the challenged claims using the prior art.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The PTAB denied Arista Networks' petition to review Orckit Corporation's patent (7545740) because the arguments and prior art were substantially identical to those previously presented in related IPR proceedings.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
LENOVO failed its IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II's patent covering integrated circuit calibration, as the Board found Petitioner could not overcome key limitations of the claims using prior art. The denial centered on insufficient accounting for a three-dimensional 'valid operation range.'
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo successfully challenged several claims of Intellectual Ventures II's patent (8474016) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute on all challenged claims. The Board found strong evidence that prior art references like Neufeld and PCI Bridge Spec taught or rendered obvious various limitations of the asserted claims.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–15) based on anticipation and obviousness over various combinations of prior art. However, the Board rejected arguments regarding Claims 3 and 8, finding insufficient articulation in the Petition to support those findings.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation and obviousness for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–14) related to a resistor bypass circuit for LEDs. The Board found that prior art references disclosed all limitations or provided clear motivation for substitution in multiple instances.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that U.S. Patent No. 7,325,140 B2 is unpatentable due to obviousness over prior art references. Specifically, the combination of Neufeld and Syvanne renders claims 11 and 12 obvious, while other combinations involving IPMI render multiple claims invalid.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges 7325140 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art related to remote device management. The petitioner contends that allowance was based on low-level implementation details already disclosed in references like Neufeld and IPMI/Lawrence.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,474,016 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that known concepts of remote management and encrypted communication were implemented using low-level details already disclosed in existing technology.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,910,984 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs involving Dyson patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Pictiva Displays requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision finding Samsung’s OLED patent claims unpatentable. The Owner alleges the Board ignored contradictory expert testimony and introduced a new obviousness argument in reply, violating procedural rules.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00924, which rendered the Director Review request for IPR2024-00920 moot.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991 and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public policy and resource efficiency.
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.