US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 83 of 87 · 2,587 total
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. challenged CLO Virtual Fashion's patent on digital design methods, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references related to CAD systems renders the claimed apparatus and method predictable.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,733,773 owned by CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious based on combinations of existing CAD software and prior art publications. This challenge focuses on whether combining known techniques with EZBRUSH software yields predictable improvements in garment patterning.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG challenged Everlight Electronics' Patent No. 9,640,733 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claimed LED carrier structure is unpatentable. The petitioner raised multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) against several prior art references. This challenge targets core structural elements of the light-emitting diode packaging.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of patent 9184157 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. The challenge asserts that the claimed ESD protection circuits are obvious over prior art references Reiner and Takahara. The petition was successfully instituted, setting up a detailed examination of the combination of existing circuit knowledge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging three claims related to anisotropic heat-spreading panels used in electronic packaging. The petitioner argues that these claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Kuo and Nozaki/Hanai. Samsung also contends the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petition asserts that several claims related to multicast routing and switch fabric are obvious over prior art references Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng, and Rao under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This proceeding addresses the core validity of networking technology patents.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. has initiated an IPR challenge against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s patent covering gravel packing systems for oil and gas applications. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art developed by ExxonMobil/Mobil research groups dating back to the 1990s. This action targets multiple claims related to differential pressure shunt tubes and screen geometry.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major carriers including AT&T and T-Mobile have filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,736,883, which covers cellular network inter-node connectivity methods. The Petitioners argue that the patent is invalid under Sections 102 and 103 based on prior art references Centonza and Han.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja filed an IPR petition challenging Dyson's patent (11044979) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed hot air styling methods are predictable combinations of prior art, specifically combining Saito and Lindsey references.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations challenges Powermat Technologies' patent 9,083,204 regarding inductive charging technology. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references, including Onishi and Purdy.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9359044) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as passive static stability and specific airfoil designs, are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. filed a Petition asserting that MHL Custom, Inc.'s personal hydrofoil watercraft patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that various prior art references combine to render the claimed design obvious.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV challenges BuzzBallz's container patent (11,932,441) via Petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references related to plastic and metal container design.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed distributed network features are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references Skagerwall and Vingralek would motivate a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art to implement the claims for improved scalability.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7814170) on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed distributed file system architecture is predictable when combining prior art references Kahn et al. and Vingralek R.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has petitioned the PTAB, arguing that U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978 is unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Kahn, Krasner, and Vingralek renders numerous claims obvious in the field of networked data storage.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku challenged VideoLabs' patent 8291236 in an IPR proceeding, alleging that the core concepts of bridging security systems were anticipated by prior art. Petitioner argues that claims related to dynamic encryption and entitlement management are obvious over references like Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of VideoLabs' patent related to Conditional Access and DRM technology. The petitioner argues that the core concept of bridging security systems is anticipated or rendered obvious by multiple prior art references, including Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging VideoLabs' patent 8667304 related to Conditional Access/DRM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are anticipated by prior art reference Russ under Section 102, and are obvious in view of Robert under Section 103.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.
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.