Electronic communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Wrinkl’s ’731 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art chat‑interface patents.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications. The petition argues that discretionary factors strongly favor institution.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
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.