US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 283 of 291 · 8,722 total
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries and ATI Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2024-00366 concerning U.S. Patent 8,760,454. The motion indicates a settlement and seeks to end the proceeding.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The IPR concerning Ridge Wallet's patent 10,791,808 was terminated after the parties reached a confidential settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement kept separate from the patent file.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Shenzhen Pincan Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's '930 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated trading and currency conversion methods are conventional features of electronic financial systems known prior to 2007.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a petition challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (US 10062107) before the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable over prior art based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging patent 10776863 held by Intercurrency Software LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on the combination of electronic trading features and currency conversion methods in financial technology.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent 8783564, asserting that its core claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Horie and Kobayashi. The Board ruled against discretionary denial, moving the case into active litigation status.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries challenged ATI Technologies' patent 8760454 in an IPR, arguing the unified shader claims are obvious. The petitioner bases its case on combining multiple prior art patents related to graphics processing and load balancing.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310, arguing that claims 1-4 are anticipated (102) or obvious (103). The PTAB institution of review allows the challenger to proceed with its core arguments regarding payment authorization novelty.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology filed an IPR challenging The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets all 24 claims using extensive prior art combinations involving references like Kane, Beckley, and Minn.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued an Institution Decision for IPR2024-00378, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner challenged claims 1-15 of the '930 patent related to trading platforms and currency conversion.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent 10062107, challenging claims 19-36 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner regarding at least one challenged claim, advancing the dispute into the trial phase.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (10062107) on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding Claim 1, leading to the institution of all 18 claims at issue.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Calabrese Stemer LLC's credit card authorization patent (7954706). The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims, leading to a favorable outcome for the Petitioner.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Calabrese Stemer LLC, asserting that the '564 patent' claims are anticipated by prior art (Horie). The Board found sufficient likelihood of success regarding Claim 1 based on the prior art disclosure of card usage status notifications.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB instituted trial on all four claims of patent 7357310 after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner, Askeladden L.L.C., would prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The grounds relied heavily on the prior art reference 'Horie' to anticipate and render obvious the mobile payment authorization claims.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. successfully challenged ATI Technologies ULC's patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner on specific grounds, leading to an institution decision.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding claims 19-36 unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg was sufficient to teach key limitations in electronic trading/forex methods.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,706 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The grounds included anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), utilizing prior art references such as Horie, Kano, and Kobayashi.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art reference, Horie, anticipated the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This decision relates to Mobile Payment Authorization technology and is tied to related District Court litigation.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
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.