US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 80 of 87 · 2,587 total
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla (Petitioner) challenged Autonomous Devices' patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Buibas and Grotmol. The Board found factors favoring institution, meaning the case will proceed to the merits phase.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenged Cellspin Soft, Inc.'s patent (US 11659381) in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution, noting that both discretionary tests favored proceeding with the case.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cellspin Soft, Inc., challenging claims 1-10 on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the petitioner's stipulation regarding parallel district court litigation favored institution under Fintiv factors.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenges the validity of Cellspin Soft's patent 9900766, alleging obviousness over various combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on combining Kahn with Bluetooth and Singh129 with Singh906 to invalidate claims related to mobile multimedia upload systems. This initial filing sets up a complex technical battleground in the PTAB.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenged Cellspin Soft, Inc.'s patent (8904030) in an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Hiroishi/Takahashi and Singh129/Bluetooth. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding based on favorable institutional factors.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 regarding CMOS fabrication/doping profiles. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on numerous prior art references including Onoda and Payne. This challenges the patent's validity in semiconductor device technology.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenges the validity of a patent covering CMOS device fabrication methods on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition asserts that the claimed graded dopant structures are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations, including Kawagoe and Wieczorek.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged Greenthread's '502 patent, arguing that claims related to CMOS/Flash Memory Fabrication are unpatentable under 102 and 103. The petition relies on prior art references like Onoda and Payne to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor device technology.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments (Petitioner) filed an opening petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,316,014 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets numerous claims related to CMOS/VLSI fabrication and memory technology using various prior art combinations.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation initiated a PTAB petition challenging the validity of Proxense's '730 Patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over prior art references Burger and Robinson. The petition focuses on biometric authentication systems, arguing that combining elements from these references renders the claimed technology predictable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging 16 claims of Proxense, LLC's patent related to biometric authentication for financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Burger and Robinson. This marks a key procedural step in the ongoing dispute between the parties.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenged Maxell's patent claims regarding video content management and user profiles in an IPR petition, asserting obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the arguments did not meet the standard for compelling merits.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nike's footwear patent, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings. The petition asserts that numerous claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Clark and Mills.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association filed an IPR challenging Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent on telematics and driver monitoring systems. The petitioner asserts that all 27 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This challenges the validity of a key technology in automotive safety and connectivity.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's RFID authentication patents (8646042) in a Petition, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing technology discloses core elements of hybrid devices and proximity token systems. This proceeding is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging numerous claims of Sebia's patent (No. 7887686) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that combining known techniques, such as using zwitterionic buffers with flow inhibitors in Capillary Electrophoresis, is predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
Aptiv challenges Microchip's '665 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to ESD protection circuits. The challenger argues that the claimed circuit, which uses pad capacitance for energy storage, is taught or rendered obvious by prior art references like Verhaege and Miller. This initial petition sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over semiconductor device design practices.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, asserting that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on Linear Resonant Actuators (LRA) and vibration generation technology, utilizing multiple prior art combinations to demonstrate unpatentability.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. initiated a Petition challenging Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (9941830) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combining prior art references like Wakuda and Ramsay renders the claimed linear vibration modules predictable to a POSITA.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
Verizon Wireless and Cellco filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets claims 1-18, arguing that the patent is anticipated by prior art references including Limont and Wright.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a petition challenging EyesMatch's patent claims related to virtual mirrors and image processing, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining various prior art references (e.g., Haan/Francois, Geisner/Lizee) to demonstrate that the claimed technology was predictable.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics challenges Natera's patent covering cell-free DNA analysis methods in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references, including Forshew and Pieprzyk/May.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove Corporation filed an institution petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are rendered obvious by combining prior art references Bigbee and Nguyen in the field of fault-tolerant processors.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC instituted an IPR against Flex-Chem Holding Company's patent (9944843) concerning Well Stimulation/Acidizing technology. The petition asserts that the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on prior art references, including Frenier and Reyes.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
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.