Image processing — US PTAB Patent Cases
24 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 24 total
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art does not teach the claimed video‑processing features and the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent and unsupported.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in light of prior art references Zhou and Cai.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in view of Bell and Shi. The Board adopted a functional construction of the key parameter.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,840 because the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board specifically rejected obviousness arguments related to 'stickiness parameter' and 'low-light high-pass parameter.'
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the Petitioner's arguments of obviousness against 21 claims related to video stabilization and motion blur compensation. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'low-light high-pass parameter,' finding that the prior art did not disclose this specific functional element.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has filed a Petition challenging claims related to portrait mode image processing, asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner argues that combining existing techniques like background blurring with sharpness enhancement renders the patented invention obvious.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of patent 7454056, which covers color balance correction and face detection technologies. The Petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Yano, Schroder, Kuwata, and Nakamura. This challenge targets core image processing methods used in digital imaging.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has challenged a patent covering image enhancement and object detection methods before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining known face detection techniques with existing image processing apparatuses renders all 12 claimed methods unpatentable under Section 103. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation involving Google LLC in district court.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge a patent covering image processing techniques, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art references like Luo-250.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited regarding image processing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the patent's claims are unpatentable under obviousness over prior art references, moving the case toward substantive examination.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase in this IPR, securing institution on several claims related to color balance correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Claim 1 based on combinations of prior art references (Yano and Schröder).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent US 8355574 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The PTAB granted institution, moving the case into the merits phase where Google will argue that all 12 claims are unpatentable.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC's IPR petition against a patent covering image processing methods was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art references like Luo-250.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed a Petition challenging key claims of GoPro's patent covering horizon leveling and video stabilization techniques. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Thomason, Pacurariu, Watanabe, Voss, and Derbanne.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision challenges GoPro's '413 patent claims 1-20 under § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed non-uniform image scaling techniques are obvious combinations of existing prior art, specifically citing Meulen and Chao. This petition targets core functionality in panoramic image processing.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung filed a Petition challenging Maxell's patent (US 11223757) on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the claimed camera delay mechanisms are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Chinn, Takahashi, and EX-V7.
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.