Imaging technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
44 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 44 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’682 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Optimum Imaging’s 8,451,339 camera‑aberration patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their PTAB dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate four IPRs. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that terminates the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑14 of Maxell’s ’493 electric‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under federal law. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to limit public disclosure.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have settled their district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and others settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,612,805. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to file a dismissal stipulation. The dispute will be resolved without further litigation.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and other petitioners settled their IPR disputes with Optimum Imaging Technologies. The Board terminated the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to remain confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
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.