Computer hardware — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 5 · 129 total
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Redstone Logics LLC's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The dispute centered on multi-core processor design and clock ratio controllers.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate nine claims of Multifold’s ’756 patent covering split‑screen gestures on multi‑display devices, citing Yook, Lee, Aguilar and Purcell as prior art and arguing against discretionary denial.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master has filed a petition to cancel claims 1‑7 of Asetek’s liquid‑cooling patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and citing a prior IPR that cancelled similar claims.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Fox, Safford, Arai and related references.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW challenged claims of Foras Technologies' patent related to switching the boot processor role in multi-processor systems. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove unpatentability over prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent succeeded; all 24 claims were found obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and thus unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,386,024 patent, arguing Samsung’s record is overly voluminous and its six grounds lack particularity. The petition urges denial of institution and referral to district court.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics' IPR against Netlist’s 8,489,837 B1 patent succeeded, finding claims 1‑3,5,6 unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references LeClerg, Lee, and Kim. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB found all 29 claims of Netlist's ’623 memory module patent unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior art references including Hazelzet, Buchmann, and Talbot. Samsung, as petitioner, secured a complete cancellation of the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,218 patent covering memory‑module handshaking. The PTAB found all 22 claims obvious over prior‑art combinations of Hazelzet and Buchmann. The decision also rejected the parties’ proposed claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that Samsung Electronics demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its IPR challenge against Netlist, Inc.'s memory module patents. The Board determined the Office erred in its prior evaluation and applied collateral estoppel to support the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Hazelzet and Buchmann.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Lian Li’s illumination‑fan patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its LED fan patent unpatentable. The request centers on inconsistent claim‑construction positions between the IPR and parallel district‑court litigation.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim based on obviousness. The Board specifically found evidence supporting Claim 1 over Lai and Hasegawa, while also noting inconclusive findings regarding Tsuji/Huang combinations.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ‘281 patent on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled four inter partes review proceedings before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
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.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs that target Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused its discretion by omitting claim construction and prior‑art analysis. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review request to overturn PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs covering its USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board failed to apply an agreed claim construction and ignored prior‑art analysis. The request is pending review by the Director.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv Technologies' patent (9460037) in an IPR petition, arguing the claimed USB hub technology is obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references like Chang II and Chutorash to demonstrate predictable design evolution for dual-role ports.
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.