Artificial intelligence — US PTAB Patent Cases
37 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 37 total
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Dialect LLC's patent, challenging claims related to Natural Language Processing and Conversational AI. The Board found that prior art disclosure regarding context stack synchronization was sufficient to warrant further review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art (Coffman, Kennewick, Ross). The Board agreed with the Patent Owner that the prior art disclosures were too high-level to support the combination claimed.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent on conversational AI was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Ronning.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found that claims 1-7, 12-17, and 19-23 were unpatentable over prior art (Coffman/Kennewick/Lee) based on obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that 'synchronize' only requires updating context information without duplicating entry order.
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.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla successfully argued that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, leading to the Board's decision to institute IPR trial. The petitioner focused on combining spiking neural network techniques with autonomous robotic operation for improved efficiency and task specialization. This institution sets up a high-stakes technical battle regarding AI implementation in robotics.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that several original claims were unpatentable over Buibas in view of Sinyavskiy. However, the Board subsequently found the petitioner's substitute claims obvious over combinations of Grotmol and Zhu prior art, leading to further rejection.
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.