Computer science — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of the Regents of the University of California’s 2010 patent on parallel distributed programming, asserting anticipation by the 1998 Fukuda publication.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
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.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
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.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
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.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
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.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
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.
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.