Computer software — US PTAB Patent Cases
52 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 52 total
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 7,784,058. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations of OS functionality. The petition relies on prior‑art references (Ely, Levine, Thekkath, Eggert) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier container‑virtualization technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,839,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites the early stage of the proceeding and lack of opposition as grounds for termination.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR over patent 7,949,752. The Board is asked to grant the motion based on efficiency and the lack of opposition.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
VirtaMove successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for Google’s IPR, arguing statutory authority and rejecting judicial estoppel. The rehearing request was denied, leaving the IPR uninstated.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director's discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove's 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and violated the APA.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against VirtaMove’s virtualization patent was rejected. The Board upheld the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 316, leaving the patent’s validity untouched.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs against VirtaMove’s migration‑related patent. The order applies uniformly to all listed cases.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing container‑virtualization technologies such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing they are obvious over Blaser, Calder, and Schmidt-449. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found insufficient evidence that prior art references taught or suggested the claimed interactive data visualization features.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding combining prior art references.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-00746, keeping the original institution ruling intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the outcome.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung opposes Maxell’s request to overturn the PTAB’s final written decision, asserting no inconsistency in expert testimony and accusing Maxell of strategic gamesmanship. The Board’s earlier findings remain unchallenged.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.
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.