Computing devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
5 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 5 total
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
HP Inc. et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 in a petition asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art references (Lane, Pogue, MIT, Hotelling, Segawa). The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely predictable combinations of existing technology in portable computing devices.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola challenged Multifold's patent on user interface technology based on anticipation and obviousness. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was unpatentable, moving the case toward trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,842,080 B2 based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references (Ogawa, Yook et al., Choi) render the patent claims unpatentable. The case is now set for trial.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '8612888 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petition argues that the claimed digital media management methods are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Martinez. This challenges core aspects of the patent's validity in computing devices technology.
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.