Financial technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
74 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 3 · 74 total
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase's request to institute IPR against Identitii Limited's patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a petition challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (US 10062107) before the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable over prior art based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging patent 10776863 held by Intercurrency Software LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on the combination of electronic trading features and currency conversion methods in financial technology.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued an Institution Decision for IPR2024-00378, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner challenged claims 1-15 of the '930 patent related to trading platforms and currency conversion.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (10062107) on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding Claim 1, leading to the institution of all 18 claims at issue.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited argument about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's challenge to Cortex MCP's patent was upheld by the PTAB Director Review Panel. The panel affirmed the Board's finding that the prior art (Oborne) discloses the claimed credential verification limitation.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc. successfully defended the Board's Final Written Decision in a Director Review proceeding against Cortex MCP, Inc., affirming that the challenged claims were unpatentable based on prior art Oborne.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's claims against Cortex MCP were upheld by the PTAB Director in a review of the Final Written Decision. The Board confirmed that Oborne discloses the token verification limitation central to Visa's patent.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The Board found that the majority of claims (24 out of 33) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The key finding was that Oborne teaches core tokenization elements, while other combinations failed to provide sufficient motivation for the claimed improvements.
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.