US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 79 of 87 · 2,587 total
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent (10291449) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen, July 2005 WWiSE, and Choi, to demonstrate predictable improvements in wireless OFDM technology.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious combinations of prior art standards like Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner asserts that industry standards already taught predictable methods for improving wireless efficiency and range.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC challenged Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s patent claims regarding lens design and stray light reduction in a PTAB proceeding. The challenge centers on obviousness, arguing that the claimed 'light trap' structure is merely an predictable adaptation of prior art CN182.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), leading to institution. The petition asserted multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Vinciarelli-218, Zeng-014, Park, and Jun.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against Cobblestone Wireless's '802 Patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art standards like IEEE 802.11n D2.0 and Shearer.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. petitioned the PTAB challenging AX Wireless LLC's patent (11212146) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are rendered obvious by either a single prior art reference (Yu) or a combination of Hansen and WWiSE.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn Corporation filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of patent 10715878, arguing they are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Baig and Laidlaw to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in targeted advertising and device association technology.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully petitioned to challenge WellcomeMat's patent claims regarding online video cue point management. The PTAB institution decision was based on multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA challenges the '802 Patent's claims (1, 2, 3, 8) in a Petition, asserting they are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. The Petitioner argues that various references, including Chen and Baker, disclose all elements of the claimed nasal application formulations.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Soto, Alexander et al.
AT&T Corp. et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against the '754 Patent, challenging 30 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The Board found strong merits in the petition, noting that the combination of prior art references was highly relevant to Passive Optical Networks (PONs).
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT, Inc. filed a Petition challenging all 20 claims of Medtronic's '483 Patent based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Watson and Schwartz—render the implantable drug delivery device unpatentable.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's '907 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references including Goldenberg and Levin. The petitioner asserted compelling evidence of unpatentability across all 20 claims based on various grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Petition challenging key claims of Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The challenger argues that the claimed power supply apparatus is rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references in DC-DC Converters technology.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Eagle View Technologies' patent 10671648. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Harris and Florance. This challenge focuses on geo-temporal database indexing and querying methods.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung filed a Petition challenging Maxell's patent (US 11223757) on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the claimed camera delay mechanisms are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Chinn, Takahashi, and EX-V7.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. initiated this Petition challenging the patentability of MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s claims related to Power Management/DVFS technology. The petitioner asserts multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103) based on combinations of prior art references like Nowka, Borkar, Nicol, and Iyengar.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,574,725 on grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger argues that the claimed method for multimedia distribution is rendered obvious by combining prior art references like Garfinkle and Kosten. This challenge relates to Digital Content Delivery/Video-on-Demand technology.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s patent (9342078) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Almadi, Gutierrez, and SCADA. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are fully disclosed by these references in the field of Industrial Automation.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group challenges SitePro's patent (9898014) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are either anticipated by Kahn or rendered obvious when combining Kahn with Gutierrez.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. challenged SitePro's patent (11726504) via a Petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Cardamone or Kahn under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petitioner also argues for obviousness based on combining prior art with SCADA under § 103.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. filed an opening petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s Patent No. 10,488,871 in the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn and Gutierrez.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas challenges SitePro's patent (11,294,403) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, arguing that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez. The PTAB has instituted the case, allowing the merits of the anticipation and obviousness arguments to proceed.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges EMKinetics' patent on tremor treatment using electrical stimulation, arguing that prior art references Gesotti and Burnett render all claims obvious or anticipated. The petitioner details how these older devices satisfy every limitation of the claimed apparatus and method for treating neurological conditions like tremor.
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.