Imaging technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
44 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 44 total
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) submits a response urging the Director to deny GoPro’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied obviousness analysis to the Thomason and Voss references and that GoPro’s new arguments are forfeited or lack a nexus. No procedural error is identified, and the Director should reject the review.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement, jointly requesting termination of the IPR concerning patent 8,451,339. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,612,805, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle, planning to dismiss the district court case tied to Patent 7,612,805.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of the '805 patent held by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated image distortion correction is obvious when combining references like Watanabe, Takane, and Russ. This challenges the validity of key imaging technology patents in the digital image processing space.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Motorola Mobility's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR 2024-00688 concerning patent 9,997,660. The institution denial remains in effect, ending the IPR proceeding.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Pictometry’s aerial imaging patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied rules on claim‑chart format, expert declaration length, and claim construction. Nearmap seeks remand to a new panel to evaluate its obviousness and anticipation arguments.
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.