Electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
35 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 35 total
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied the patent owner's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, leaving the original institution rulings intact.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Infineon against MOSAID regarding patent 9,972,381 B1, setting the stage for trial.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 9,107,324, citing a settlement agreement and good cause under PTAB precedent. The motion seeks to end the pre‑institution proceeding to conserve resources.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,609,527 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple filed an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7609527 patent covering electronic modules, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of ImberaTek’s ’723 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Tuominen967Pub, Capote, and Asahi make the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing and refused to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent, citing the parallel district court trial and discretionary authority. The decision rests on six Fintiv factors and the weakness of the petition’s merits.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior denial of institution across several patent challenges.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior institution decisions across several patents.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The Board found all seven challenged claims unpatentable, rejecting the patent owner's narrow construction of 'passivation layer.' The petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references (Anzai and Yamazaki) taught or rendered obvious the claimed invention in OLED devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge ParkerVision, Inc.'s '593 patent in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The Board instituted the trial on all 20 challenged claims based on obviousness (103), despite arguments regarding constitutional due process and duplication of district court litigation.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's LDO voltage regulator patent (9471074), arguing that the claimed features are obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of references like Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, Ivanov, and Stanescu to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi. The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Mullen’s 2015 patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial standards and ignored a binding Sotera stipulation.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Choulis, Sugiura, and Thompson. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'matrix material' and found multiple grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply and Everlight Electronics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,742, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential per regulatory provisions.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for U.S. Patent 7,480,637 against Jabaa L.L.C., finding Askeladden L.L.C. showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims related to biometric authentication.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a dispute involving TCL and Maxell, denying the IPR based on an error in weighing discretionary factors. The denial relates to patent 10375341.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation's IPR petition against Delta Electronics was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness. The Board cited insufficient support for combining prior art references and noted that the petitioner employed impermissible hindsight.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision for IPR2024-00705 found reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1-6, despite disputes over claim construction. The Petitioner argued that the combination of prior art references anticipated or rendered the patent obvious in the field of Power Converters/Circuit Boards.
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.