US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 85 of 87 · 2,587 total
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patents held by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. and Celerity IP, LLC. The core dispute centers on claims related to beamforming control signaling in massive MIMO systems. Petitioners assert that the claimed novelty is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike has filed a Petition challenging SherryWear's U.S. Patent No. 9,289,016 in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the bra design claims are obvious.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike filed a PTAB petition challenging the validity of SherryWear's bra pocket system claims, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Barg and Pintor. The petitioner argues that these combinations render the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,295,288 held by SherryWear regarding intimate apparel design features. The petitioner argues that the claimed bra elements are obvious combinations of prior art references like Barg and York. This challenge tests the boundaries of routine design choices in the apparel industry.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's patented pocketed bra design (U.S. 9,723,878) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Vidai and Handras in view of Spagna. The Board found that Nike met its burden to show a reasonably strong case for unpatentability.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike challenges SherryWear’s patent (9,808,036) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claimed pocket bra designs are obvious over existing prior art references. The petition asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations of references like Barg, York, and Pintor. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the two companies.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike has filed a petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 10,219,550 held by SherryWear, LLC, arguing that the claims related to bra pockets are obvious.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,219,551 held by SherryWear, LLC in a PTAB Petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed pocketed bra designs are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references like Vidai and Handras.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike, Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,244,800 held by SherryWear, LLC. The core challenge is obviousness over multiple prior art references including Spagna, Rose, and Glass. This petition also raises issues regarding the priority date entitlement of the challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenges SherryWear's sports bra patent (10869510) based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna, Rose, and Glass. The petitioner argues that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would find it obvious to modify existing designs using common knowledge regarding materials and pocket function.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's LED backlighting patents (7168842) based on anticipation and obviousness. The challenge targets claims 3-9, arguing that combinations of prior art references like Uekusa and Isoda render the claimed technology unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE challenged Optronic Sciences' LCD sealant patents under anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103). The PTAB found the petition met compelling merits standards, resulting in institution of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD initiated an IPR challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's OLED display patent (7,586,121). The petitioner asserts that the claimed structural and manufacturing elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Anzai and Yamazaki.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,263,509 held by Optronic Sciences, LLC. The petition asserts that the patent claims related to OLED pixel structure are anticipated (102) or obvious (103) over various combinations of prior art references. This challenges the validity of key display technology patents.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to challenge Optronic Sciences LLC's '733 patent, leading to its institution at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that claims related to OLED/AMOLED pixel structures are invalid under 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness). This moves the dispute into a detailed examination of prior art combinations in display technology.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
A petition was filed challenging Autoscribe Corporation's '621 patent, which covers tokenization methods for online payment processing. The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques are obvious over prior art references, specifically PayPal’s Express Checkout and Schlesser systems. The PTAB found sufficient grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) to institute the review.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. challenged Infogation Corp.'s patent 6292743, arguing that the claimed use of non-proprietary, natural language formats for routes was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies on various prior art references, including McGrath and Knockeart, to demonstrate that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to make simple modifications.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon and other petitioners filed a petition challenging NL GIKEN INCORPORATED's '615 patent, asserting obviousness in Smart TV remote control systems. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Cooper and Slotznick to invalidate claims related to universal manual operations.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed an Initial Petition challenging 15 claims of Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent related to hand vacuum cleaner configuration. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious, relying on two distinct combinations of prior art references.
Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.
Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) challenged GoPro's '840 patent in the PTAB, arguing that numerous claims related to video stabilization are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references—including Bell and Shi—teach how to improve motion blur reduction and utilize temporal horizons. This petition challenges 21 specific claims based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision Inc. (Insta360) has challenged GoPro's video stabilization patent via an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Petitioners Kia and Toyota filed a petition challenging Emerging Automotive LLC's patent on vehicle access control systems using electronic keys. The challenge centers on multiple grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing prior art from Kleve, Hatton, Mikan, Xiao, and Sekiyama.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed a petition challenging The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (10905647) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed stick compositions merely recite known ingredients and consumer preferences within the cosmetics industry.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged The Procter & Gamble Company’s '706 Patent, arguing that its claims regarding natural deodorants are unpatentable. The petitioner relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness (35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103). These challenges focus on the use of basic concepts and ingredient combinations found in existing prior art.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Petitioner Amazon challenges 40 claims of Nokia's '701 patent in an IPR petition. The central argument is that combinations of prior art, specifically run/level coding techniques (Tsai) and context-switching methods (VCEG-L28), render the claimed image compression technology obvious.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia’s patent (8175148) based on obviousness over foundational video compression standards like MPEG-1 and H.263. The petitioner argues that key claimed features, including motion compensated prediction and dynamic quantization levels, are already disclosed in these established industry standards.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories filed a Petition challenging the obviousness of nine claims in patent 10068051, which relates to molecular diagnostics/PCR methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed multiplexed detection techniques are straightforward extensions of existing prior art concepts found in references like Saxonov and Silverbrook.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories has filed an IPR challenging the validity of a patent covering multiplex digital PCR assays owned by California Institute of Technology et al. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are unpatentably obvious, representing only a straightforward extension of existing nucleic acid analysis concepts.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
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.