Industry Sector

Computer Science — US PTAB Patent Cases

10 decisions indexed

Page 1 of 1 · 10 total

patent

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01017

Google LLC challenges Kove IO, Inc.'s patent claims regarding distributed data management under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is anticipated by Kahn et al. and rendered obvious when combined with Vingralek R.

patent instituted

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01084

Apple Inc. successfully obtained institution at the PTAB against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan, leading to an institutional decision.

patent denied

Google LLC v.Dialect LLC

· IPR2024-00746

Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Dialect LLC's speech recognition patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its unpatentability grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision maintains the validity of the '7398209 patent in the context of ongoing district court litigation.

patent denied

Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC

· IPR2024-00659

Databricks, Inc. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8190610) regarding MapReduce data grouping. The PTAB denied institution because Petitioner relied on speculative hindsight rather than demonstrating a clear motivation from prior art references like Pike and Chowdhuri.

patent instituted

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.

· IPR2024-01316

Home Depot successfully petitioned for IPR institution against RavenWhite Security's patent (10594823), challenging claims 1-10 on grounds of obviousness over Hinton and Varghese. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Home Depot could prevail, allowing the dispute to proceed.

patent instituted

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.

patent instituted

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00915

The PTAB issued an Institution Decision in the Intel vs. Advanced Cluster Systems IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. This decision targets 30 claims related to cluster computing and parallel processing technologies.

patent null

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01019

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.

patent null

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01020

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.

patent null

Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.

· IPR2024-01022

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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →