Augmented reality — US PTAB Patent Cases
10 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 10 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Zugara’s AR video‑chat patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Rosenthal and Vesely publications. The petition lists 29 claims and relies on 35 U.S.C. §103.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Mullen Industries’ AR video‑game patent, asserting obviousness over earlier AR references. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Jaszlics, Sofer, Ronzani, and Rallison.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging five claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 9,744,448). The petitioner alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Meta Platforms, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent (8585476). The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
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.