Electrical Engineering — US PTAB Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation challenged Delta Electronics' '263 Patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims 1-6 are anticipated (102) and obvious (103). The petitioner relies heavily on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Vinciarelli and Zeng patents, to demonstrate unpatentability.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation and obviousness for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–14) related to a resistor bypass circuit for LEDs. The Board found that prior art references disclosed all limitations or provided clear motivation for substitution in multiple instances.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), leading to institution. The petition asserted multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Vinciarelli-218, Zeng-014, Park, and Jun.
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.