Computer vision — US PTAB Patent Cases
16 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 16 total
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,030,491. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Gross publication alone or in combination with Furukawa or Davis, asserting that the invention merely applies conventional image‑processing and machine‑learning techniques.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,650,285, arguing the claims are obvious over the Gross publication (and Gross + Davis for claim 8) under §103. The petition includes an expert declaration supporting unpatentability.
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,195,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Gross publication and other prior art.
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, citing statutory authority and efficiency concerns.
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art patents and CyberLink’s YouCam 3 publications.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pointwise Ventures’ 8,471,812 patent, alleging obviousness over Oami, Du, and Darrell references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
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.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
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.
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.
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.