Industry Sector

Human-computer interaction — US PTAB Patent Cases

10 decisions indexed

Page 1 of 1 · 10 total

patent · May 20, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED

· IPR2025-01023

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of CM HK’s 3D pointing‑device patent, arguing obviousness over Bassompiere and Nasiri references and lack of written description for quaternion‑based features.

patent instituted · Jul 2, 2024

Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation

· IPR2024-00556

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.

patent Final Written Decision · Jul 2, 2024

Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation

· IPR2024-00556

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.

patent instituted · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01114

Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.

patent instituted · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01085

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to graphical user interfaces and touch screen manipulation. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).

patent instituted · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01083

Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-based touch interfaces. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple's claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley. This decision sets the stage for a full trial on patent validity.

patent Final Written Decision · Jun 28, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01116

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.

patent instituted · Jun 26, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01091

Apple Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's touch screen patent (10936114). The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds across multiple claims using four prior art references.

patent final · Jun 26, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-01091

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on the IPR, finding claims 30 and 62 unpatentable while upholding the patentability of claims 1, 32, 34, and 64. The Board clarified that 'the gesture' must refer to a single input with a common starting point, rejecting the Petitioner’s argument for multiple gestures.

patent instituted · Jan 19, 2024

Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation

· IPR2024-00478

Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent (9430042) in an IPR petition, asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argued that the claimed haptic feedback system was rendered invalid by combinations of prior art references like Ichinose/Levin and Rosenberg-I/Goldenberg.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →