Consumer Electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
64 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 3 · 64 total
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Multifold’s patent, arguing the patent owner’s antedating evidence is insufficient and its declarants lack credibility.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Cerence’s ’750 patent covering low‑power voice activation. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its smartwatch patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and would cause waste given an imminent district‑court trial. The petition contends the Board’s factual findings are erroneous and requests denial of institution.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World challenges the USPTO’s denial of its IPR on a disposable vaporizer patent, arguing material error and improper use of the Fintiv memo. The petitioner seeks institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon's IPR petition against NL GIKEN regarding a TV viewing experience patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on all 16 challenged claims, focusing heavily on obviousness over Cooper and Slotznick.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Specifically, Claim 1 and dependent claims were found obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations like the Lorex Manual and Kim '941. This decision significantly weakens the Patent Owner's position in this IPR proceeding.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging E-Vision Smart Optics' '960 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petitioner asserts that foundational concepts like voice commands and proximity detection were disclosed much earlier by competitors. This action targets 26 claims based on combinations of patents including Jannard-740 and Rosenblatt.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks denial of TCL’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,650,780, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, fails statutory particularity, and repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL's IPR petition. The owner argues the petition repeats previously presented art, shows no material error, and presents unsupported claim‑construction arguments. The board is asked to reject institution of the review.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,219,020, arguing the prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 12 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board concluded that combining various prior art references—including Kim, TechnoBuffalo, and Ma—rendered the VOD user interface methods obvious.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics 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.