Computer security — US PTAB Patent Cases
13 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 13 total
Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS
Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’721 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering browser security, daemons, and DNS techniques. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike successfully secured institution of IPR against GoSecure's patent 9,954,872. The Board adopted a broad construction for the key term 'association,' reinforcing the likelihood of unpatentability.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike initiated an IPR against GoSecure's '872 patent, focusing on obviousness (103) in the field of Intrusion Detection Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1 regarding Claim 1 over Capalik, advancing the case toward trial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent covering sandboxed computing environments, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all claims of its cloud‑virtualization patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board improperly introduced new evidence—misinterpreting Veselov’s description of a file system—as teaching the claimed virtual‑disk location, violating procedural rules.
Dell Inc. et al. v.--
Dell Inc. et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR2024-00564, challenging SOFTEX's '649 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103). The Board found that the Becton factors strongly favored institution, despite some Fintiv factors weighing against denial.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
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.