Computer Systems — US PTAB Patent Cases
33 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 33 total
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the petition challenging patent 9003315, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate obviousness against the claims. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (LiTL LLC), concluding that prior art combinations did not teach the specific content filtering required by the patent.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and others failed to prove obviousness against LiTL LLC's display adaptation patent (9003315) before the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioners could not demonstrate sufficient particularity regarding content filtering, denying the unpatentability challenges.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. challenged the patentability of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s claims regarding adaptive display systems in intelligent televisions. The petitioner argues that these GUI elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references Lider and Eibl.
Valeo SE et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
Valeo SE et al. filed a Petition challenging claims of Foras Technologies Limited's patent (7502958) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petitioners argue that the claimed fault-tolerant processor architecture is rendered obvious by combining Bigbee and Nguyen prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,649,578 held by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references, specifically Shiplacoff and a combination of Shiplacoff with Nan. This proceeding addresses fundamental questions regarding gesture recognition in touch screen interfaces.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America successfully challenged Foras Technologies Limited's patent via IPR, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on multiple obviousness grounds.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and others failed in their IPR challenge against LiTL LLC's GUI patent (10564818). The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the claimed view-selection method was not obvious over prior art references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Foras Technologies, challenging 30 claims related to fault tolerance and processor redundancy. The Board found the petition met the Advanced Bionics framework requirements by introducing new prior art (Arai and Landry).
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in proving unpatentability. The claims related to graphical user interfaces (GUI) were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding 59 claims of the '758 patent unpatentable based primarily on obviousness (103) over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine these prior art references to teach numerous claimed features in the touch interface technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that numerous claims in Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent were obvious over various prior art combinations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds presented, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox successfully petitioned to invalidate Motion Offense LLC's patent claims based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Riepling and Meisels. The PTAB granted the petition, instituting the case for trial.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One has initiated an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent claims related to Applet/Code Delivery Architecture under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious combinations of prior art references like Fowlow and Kimera.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding network security claims, arguing obviousness over combinations of Jeffries, LaBine, and Ishaya. The Board found that the strong showing of unpatentability on the merits outweighed factors favoring denial, leading to institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola Mobility successfully had their patentability challenge instituted against Multifold International's '007 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on prior art references Purcell and Nicholas, advancing the dispute to trial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The PTAB institution decision found that Advanced Micro Devices and Pensando Systems demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The dispute concerns task scheduling and processing element synchronization in computer systems, involving combinations of prior art references like Dongare and Gewirtz.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution for American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board specifically rejected the obviousness arguments concerning partitioning and descriptions limitations based on prior art references Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.'s patent (11811582). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art including Menon and Trefethen in the field of cluster computing.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed GUI features are merely predictable combinations of prior art from Reavey, Chandhri, and Preppernau.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft et al. filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '315 patent on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed features are merely combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Chandhri. This challenges core aspects of computer interface design in portable devices.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that all twenty claims are unpatentable by combining various prior art references, including Pröll and Preppernau.
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.