Mobile computing — US PTAB Patent Cases
17 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 17 total
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenge against Cellspin Soft's patent (11234121), asserting obviousness over multiple prior art references. Petitioners, including LifeScan and Senseonics, successfully argued that the claims were rendered obvious by combinations of existing wireless technology standards and academic publications.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Cerence Operating Company’s handwriting recognition patents based on obviousness. The petitioners argue that combining prior art references Arai and Fenwick renders the claimed input methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The challenge focuses on claims related to gesture detection and advanced user interface features like blurring effects and card metaphor multitasking. This action aims to invalidate key patents in the mobile computing space.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on touch interface technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious, combining known elements related to duration-based gestures and tactile feedback from prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding touch screen interface claims. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This paves the way for a full trial on key mobile computing patents.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to mobile user interface design and gesture recognition. The core argument centers on obviousness, asserting that combining known touch screen interactions with existing prior art techniques leads to predictable results.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenged Cellspin Soft, Inc.'s patent (US 11659381) in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution, noting that both discretionary tests favored proceeding with the case.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Cellspin Soft, Inc., leading to a decision that reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was established for claims 1-10 over Singh129 and Singh906. The Board found that Petitioner adequately demonstrated material error in prior art consideration during prosecution regarding Ground 2.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s challenge to Cellspin Soft's patent was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The Board focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) over prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications. This decision sets up trial proceedings to determine if the combination of existing technologies renders the patent claims invalid.
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.