Consumer Electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
95 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 4 · 95 total
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition against Sonos’s 11,080,001 patent covering multi-room audio synchronization, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s 2018 ‘715 patent on audio‑synchronization claims, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their dispute over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the related IPRs. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeking joinder with a related Apple IPR. The petition highlights favorable Fintiv factors and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and withdrawing pending review requests.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s ’337 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura and Kristjansson anticipate or make obvious the claimed voice‑controlled device features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed mobile‑terminal features and that Samsung’s claim‑construction reservations violate procedural rules.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,529,305 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,545,247 B2 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Malikie Innovations' handheld directional‑input patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr and Be Smarter have settled their dispute over Yondr's patents covering cell‑phone usage control. The settlement includes product discontinuation, mutual releases, and dismissal of the pending district‑court action and PGR proceeding.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Dr. Gregory D. Buckner, an expert for Be Smarter, submits a declaration asserting that the ’788 patent’s claims 1‑4 and 6‑8 are anticipated or obvious over earlier security‑case designs such as Samuel, Shin, and Simpson. He finds no secondary evidence of non‑obviousness and supports the petition for inter‑partes review.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr, Inc. filed a preliminary response to an IPR petition by Be Smarter, LLC, arguing that the cited prior art (Samuel, Shin, Simpson) does not anticipate or render obvious the ’788 patent claims and requesting denial of institution.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes over nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate nine IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 patent. The patent owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding at the pre‑institution stage.
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.