Computer Vision — US PTAB Patent Cases
5 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 5 total
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners, including 3Shape A/S, have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent claims related to 3D scanning and stitching technology. The central argument asserts that the claimed invention is obvious over prior art references Kriveshko and Zhang when combining global motion optimization techniques. This challenges the scope of a major patent in the computer vision market.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc., challenging 7 claims in patent 11875580. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on claim 1 based on prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a petition challenging EyesMatch's patent claims related to virtual mirrors and image processing, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining various prior art references (e.g., Haan/Francois, Geisner/Lizee) to demonstrate that the claimed technology was predictable.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging the validity of Hanshow Technology's '321 patent based on obviousness. The Petitioner asserts that multiple combinations of prior art references render all 21 claims unpatentable in the field of video surveillance and analytics.
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.