US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 281 of 291 · 8,722 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon’s request to overturn Nokia’s video‑compression patent was denied after the Board found the petitioners’ claim constructions erroneous and unsupported by expert testimony.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly moved to terminate four inter partes reviews after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied institution of Amazon’s IPR against Nokia’s wireless patent and dismissed the parties’ joint motion to terminate as moot. The Board granted in part a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,910,984 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims covering handheld vacuum cleaners are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combining various prior art references, including Dyson's own publications and patents.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 held by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The challenge asserts that the patent claims relating to organic electronic components are obvious over prior art references Werner and Ma. This action targets core technology in the high-value Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) market.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Molecular Loop Biosciences' patents covering dual-indexing in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The petitioner argued the claims were anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Gloor and Parameswaran. The PTAB decided to institute the IPR because the Examiner failed to consider relevant prior art during prosecution.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina Inc. has filed a petition challenging eight claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology at the PTAB. The core argument is that the challenged methods are obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically involving dual-indexing techniques and sequencing platform substitutions. This challenge targets fundamental aspects of NGS methodology.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia Technologies Oy's patents related to hybrid video coding and prediction error encoding. The petition argues that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically Koga, Lin, and Narroschke. Petitioners assert these combinations teach predictable improvements in codec implementation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenged Nokia's hybrid video coding patents at the PTAB, arguing they are obvious combinations of known techniques found in Koga, Lin, and Narroschke. The petition focuses heavily on how combining transform and spatial domain methods is predictable within modern compression standards.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron's patent (11910984) covering surface cleaning apparatus. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness based on Dimbylow and Howes.
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'.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent, challenging claims 1-6 based on anticipation by Gloor and obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Molecular Loop Biosciences regarding next-generation sequencing technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Parameswaran and Gloor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
SMAXTEC and its affiliate contest ST Reproductive Technologies' Director Review request, defending the Board’s obviousness findings for several claims of a livestock health monitoring patent and offering limited remand only to clarify claim 18 and reconcile claims 6, 19, and 20.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
ST Reproductive Technologies requests Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision that invalidated dependent claims 4, 6, and 18‑20 of its livestock‑monitoring patent. The owner alleges the Board misapplied prior‑art references and failed to consider claim‑specific arguments, seeking reversal or vacatur.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
In its preliminary reply, the patent owner defends the 8,823,515 patent against smaXtec's IPR petition by asserting that the Trevarthen reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure satisfies the ‘implanted’ claim language.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec challenges ST Reproductive Technologies’ animal‑implant RFID patent, arguing the prior art was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure anticipates the claimed implanted device elements.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.
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.