Digital imaging — US PTAB Patent Cases
25 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 25 total
Google LLC v.Clear Imaging Research LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Clear Imaging’s 32‑claim video‑stabilization patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing claim‑term constructions. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on patent 9,609,510. The petition alleges due‑process violations, APA breaches, and unconstitutional discretionary denial practices.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’729 electric‑camera patent, arguing that all four claims are obvious over prior‑art cameras. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cites favorable discretionary‑denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 digital‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition against Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent, arguing that all challenged claims are obvious over prior art and urging the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on Maxell’s ‘188 patent, asserting that claims 1‑9 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering thumbnail image editing and protection.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Intellectual Ventures II LLC were likely unpatentable based on prior art references Matsushima and Yu/Miyazaki. The Board granted institution, moving the dispute toward trial over key terms like 'integration time' in dynamic range camera technology.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Optimum Imaging’s in‑camera aberration‑correction patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier camera‑technology patents.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition, finding a reasonable likelihood of invalidity over Niikawa and Enomoto. The Board preliminarily construed 'database' to have its plain meaning, rejecting the patent owner's attempt to limit it to updatable systems.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Jaffe’s ’828 patent covering image‑authentication methods. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art camera and hashing patents, Exif metadata standards, and a data‑stream authentication patent.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '828 Patent. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, specifically requiring monitoring of the physical coupling between the sensor and memory. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any combination of prior art references renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully challenged Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent, arguing the claims were obvious over prior art references like Niikawa and Watanabe-JP. The Board agreed to institute review, resulting in the cancellation of several key claims related to in-camera image processing.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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.