Consumer Electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
95 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 95 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement materials from the public PTAB file.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon and other petitioners filed a petition challenging NL GIKEN INCORPORATED's '615 patent, asserting obviousness in Smart TV remote control systems. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Cooper and Slotznick to invalidate claims related to universal manual operations.
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 settled their dispute over a video‑device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding.
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.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 B2. The PTAB terminated the three related IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after the parties filed a joint motion and settlement agreement.
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 filed a preliminary response urging denial of Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,017,815, arguing lack of merit, prior‑art duplication, and discretionary factors favoring denial.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR over its video‑management patent, alleging procedural abuse and improper burden shifting. The request seeks Director review to overturn the institution.
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. challenged claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that the claimed VOD navigation structure was predictable by combining elements from prior art references like Kim, Hunt, and TechnoBuffalo.
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 denied VIZIO's request to challenge Multimedia Technologies' patent (9,232,168) because a key claim term ('a different user interface device') was found to be indefinite. The Board ruled it could not assess obviousness without clear claim scope.
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 a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
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.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9,510,040). The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods and interfaces are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Kim, Lee-1, Choi, and Lee-2.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the '805 patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily over a combination of prior art references Melnychenko and Chen. Key claim constructions favored the Petitioner, particularly regarding 'pre-defined format' as merely an order of data/metadata.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-14) were patentable over the prior art. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction of key terms like 'based on,' requiring temporal dependency on currently displayed content.
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.