Cybersecurity — US PTAB Patent Cases
88 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 3 · 88 total
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Petitioner Wiz challenges Orca Security Ltd.'s patent claims regarding cloud asset security and snapshot analysis under 35 U.S.C. §103. Wiz argues that the claimed methods for threat detection, risk prioritization, and reporting are obvious combinations of existing prior art.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR challenges against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11740926). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Veselov and Mohanty regarding cloud security methods.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s cloud security patents, arguing that the claimed vulnerability scanning methods are obvious combinations of known techniques. The petitioner asserts that merging Veselov's snapshot scanning with Basavapatna's risk assessment renders the invention predictable.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01395 based on a settlement agreement, citing early-stage efficiency and lack of an institution decision.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four related IPRs before any trial was instituted.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01393 following a settlement agreement. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue that early termination saves costs and resources.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01394 over patent 9,438,615, citing a settlement and the early stage of the proceeding.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield challenges BitSight’s ’615 patent on network‑asset mapping, asserting that the claims are obvious over Longo, McNab, Maltego, Zhang, Tippett and Shull. The petition lists seven §103 grounds covering all 100 claims.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's U.S. Patent 11,652,834, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Zhang patent and the McNab book. The petition lists 22 claims and argues that passive DNS enumeration techniques were well‑known before the patent's filing date.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s ’331 patent covering network‑security risk rating. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Tippett, McNab, and McGovern—to argue obviousness under §103 for claims 1‑29.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's network‑security rating patent (U.S. 9,973,524). The petition relies on §103 obviousness over McNab, McGovern, and Cole references and argues that FINTIV and §325(d) factors oppose denial.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that Wiz’s challenge to Orca’s ’685 patent succeeded, finding all 22 claims obvious over multiple cloud‑security references.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz successfully challenged Orca Security’s 11,663,031 patent covering virtual‑machine snapshot security. The PTAB found all 16 claims obvious over a combination of prior art references and declared them unpatentable.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB issued an errata to correct a grammatical mistake in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685. The correction clarifies the Board’s language about Hufsmith’s teaching on detecting sensitive data.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its cloud‑security patent are unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board relied on new, unsupported evidence from Veselov, violating due‑process rules. The request seeks reversal of the Board’s decision.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s patent claims regarding virtual machine forensics and security assessment based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques—such as snapshot analysis for vulnerability detection and risk prioritization—are merely combinations of known prior art.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging several of Orca Security Ltd.'s patents related to virtual machine and cloud asset protection. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Veselov, Price, Hufsmith, and Huseinović.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board preliminarily agreed with Wiz's claim construction arguments regarding snapshot analysis and API usage based on prior art references.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent covering virtualization and cloud security. The Board found sufficient evidence that the combination of prior art references would render the claims obvious, leading to a trial.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11663031) in cybersecurity/cloud computing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references Veselov and Price.
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.