US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 291 of 291 · 8,722 total
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,386,602 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on public‑policy grounds favoring settlement.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda’s participation in an IPR over U.S. Patent 10,869,812, citing a settlement of their dispute. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the parties also request the settlement be kept confidential.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple’s IPR against THL Holding’s patent 11,350,246 concluded with an adverse judgment after the patent owner disclaimed all challenged claims. The Board entered judgment against claims 20‑27 and terminated the proceeding.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent (9430042) in an IPR petition, asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argued that the claimed haptic feedback system was rendered invalid by combinations of prior art references like Ichinose/Levin and Rosenberg-I/Goldenberg.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation petitioned the PTAB, arguing that Immersion Corporation's patent (7336260) is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Komata, Tsuji, and Rosenberg. The Board agreed to institute the IPR proceedings based on the compelling evidence presented by the petitioner.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku Co., Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of CLX Engineering's patent (11386602) related to baggage tracking and visualization systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Cavada, Orito, Sommer, and Schmirler.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda Co. challenges Serendia's patent (10869812) in an IPR based on anticipation and obviousness, focusing on microneedling technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Mehta render multiple claims unpatentable through various combinations of elements.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple challenges THL Holding Company's patent on location and tracking systems via an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art elements from mobile communication devices and Bluetooth technology. This action is part of ongoing litigation between the parties in District Court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims in the dermatological treatment patent, primarily based on anticipation by reference Mehta. The Board rejected arguments for discretionary denial and proceeded with the IPR.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple successfully convinced the PTAB that THL Holding Company's patent claims related to device location and pairing were obvious over a combination of six prior art references. The Board issued an institution decision, setting the stage for a full trial on the challenged claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'virtual detent,' defining it as vibrotactile feedback that simulates mechanical resistance, and found anticipation in Rosenberg I for all claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 7 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 unpatentable. The decision hinged on the Petitioner's successful anticipation challenge over the prior art reference Komata.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.
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.