Industry Sector

Imaging Systems — US PTAB Patent Cases

10 decisions indexed

Page 1 of 1 · 10 total

patent instituted

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00923

Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.

patent null

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00923

Sony Corporation challenges Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's patent claims regarding automated imaging distortion correction under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious, relying on multiple combinations of prior art references in digital signal processing circuits.

patent instituted

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00925

Sony Corporation filed an IPR challenging the validity of Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '339 patent related to automated correction of imaging distortions. The petitioner argues that multiple combinations of prior art references render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the petition demonstrated a strong showing on the merits, leading to institution.

patent instituted

Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2024-00958

Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.

patent instituted

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01046

Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.

patent instituted

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00925

Sony Corporation successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC regarding digital image processing claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art, moving the case to the merits phase.

patent instituted

Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-00924

Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.

patent instituted

Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01220

Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).

patent instituted

Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01373

The PTAB granted institution of trial in this IPR concerning digital camera image processing and aberration correction. The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness arguments combining prior art references (Niikawa and Enomoto).

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 →