Financial services — US PTAB Patent Cases
12 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 12 total
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC entered into a settlement that grants Ebury a royalty‑free license to several patents covering cross‑border payments, includes covenants not to sue, and mandates dismissal of the pending IPR and related lawsuit.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB Director denied Early Warning Services’ request for a rehearing of the institution decision on Intellectual Ventures’ patent 7,314,167, leaving the institution intact.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
A petition was filed challenging Autoscribe Corporation's '621 patent, which covers tokenization methods for online payment processing. The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques are obvious over prior art references, specifically PayPal’s Express Checkout and Schlesser systems. The PTAB found sufficient grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) to institute the review.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by M&A Ventures against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patent. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability assertions, particularly regarding claim construction and prior art limitations.
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Nuvei Technologies against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, specifically regarding negative limitations in tokenization claims.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
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.