Information retrieval — US PTAB Patent Cases
7 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 7 total
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sterling Computers' 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, citing obviousness over Dumais, Rose, and a Rose‑Bieganski combination.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Rule 14’s ’712 data‑mining patent, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a broad set of prior art covering collection selection and non‑textual data queries.
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.