Page 284 of 291 · 8,722 total

patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00507

Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.

patent null · Jan 31, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC

· IPR2024-00389

Tesla challenges Relink US LLC's '755 Patent in an IPR, alleging that the claims are anticipated by Serban and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petition details multiple grounds under 102 and 103 across all 20 claims, focusing on grid-tied photovoltaic power management systems.

patent null · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00333

Apple challenges Carbyne Biometrics' patent 11475105 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art references like Kesanupalli and Cheng render multiple claims unpatentable.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2024

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00532

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2024

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00520

Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00507

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC

· IPR2024-00389

Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.

patent denied · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00333

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 30, 2024

Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation

· IPR2024-00508

Apple successfully challenged Immersion’s haptic‑feedback patent in an IPR, resulting in ten claims being found obvious over the Burrough prior‑art reference.

patent denied · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00516

Aylo Freesites filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against DISH Technologies’ streaming patent, alleging misapplication of General Plastic factors and discretionary denial errors.

patent denied · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00518

The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites' request for review of the denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies' patent 9,407,564, leaving the original institution decision intact.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00516

Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.

patent denied · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00512

The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites' request for review of the PTAB's denial of institution in IPR2024-00512 against DISH Technologies.

patent instituted · Jan 30, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00511

Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00514

Aylo Freesites seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition challenging DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent. The petitioner argues the Board failed to consider the merits of the Leaning reference and misapplied General Plastic factors.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00515

Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR petition against DISH Technologies' streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of the "Leaning" prior art.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00458

Microsoft filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00458 against LiTL’s patent. The petitioner alleges arbitrary evaluation of references and inconsistency with a prior panel decision.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00457

Microsoft filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00457 against LiTL’s patent 9,880,715. The petitioner alleges arbitrary reasoning and inconsistency with a prior panel decision.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00457

Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00511

Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00519

Court decision.

patent denied · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00513

The USPTO denied Aylo Freesites’ petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2024-00513 covering patent 10,757,156. The denial leaves the original institution decisions unchanged.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and 10x Genomics jointly asked the PTAB to file their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file. The request invokes 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations to protect the settlement details.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00519

Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against DISH Technologies' adaptive‑rate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of the Leaning prior art.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00519

Aylo Freesites Ltd has petitioned the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2024‑00519, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and Fintiv considerations.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00518

Aylo Freesites filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial of institution for IPR2024-00518, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored merits. The Board had denied institution under discretionary grounds.

patent · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00518

Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied its IPR petition on DISH Technologies’ adaptive‑streaming patent, arguing the Board improperly ignored the merits and misapplied General Plastic factors.

patent denied · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00517

The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites' petitions for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to DISH Technologies' patent 11,677,798.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →