Electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
18 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 18 total
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Vicor Corporation's IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the argument that Petitioner relied on impermissible hindsight bias when combining prior art references for obviousness and anticipation grounds.
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.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Ltd.'s IPR challenge against ICPillar LLC's '8924899 patent was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over prior art including Rompaey and Banerjee. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for key software commands, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging BX LED LLC's patent (7973465) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cites multiple prior art references, including Shoji, Yatsuda, Hussell, Blonder, Thompson, and Nii, to invalidate claims 1-12 related to LED packaging/thermal management.
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.
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.