Computer systems — US PTAB Patent Cases
49 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 49 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems initiated an Inter Partes Review against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent 10601780, challenging claims related to network security and virtualization. The petitioner successfully argued that the claimed features were obvious in view of prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings.
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.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to dynamic background appearance changes on touch screens. The core argument is that these claims are obvious, relying on combinations of prior art such as Hackborn and Westerman. This challenges the scope of protection for advanced gesture recognition 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft et al. filed a Petition challenging the validity of LiTL LLC's patent 10564818, asserting that all eight challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition centers on GUI functionality in portable computing modes, arguing combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
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.
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 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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.