Mobile devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
22 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 22 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell contests Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose the three distinct display modes claimed. The patent owner seeks denial of institution, asserting no reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks limited access and notification of any disclosure attempts.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Multifold’s ’153 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its dual‑screen smartphone patent, arguing the Board relied on a single dependent claim and ignored substantial antedating evidence. The petition contends the institution is inefficient and better suited for district‑court resolution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola challenged Multifold’s dual‑screen smartphone patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on a single dependent claim, prompting Multifold to seek Director Review, arguing the Board ignored extensive antedating evidence and violated efficiency guidelines.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition against Multifold's dual‑screen patent, seeking to invalidate twelve claims as obvious over Yook, Bauer and Lee references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's 8,836,842 patent covering dual‑screen handheld devices, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Chin and Whitehorn.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Multifold International's patent 9141135 on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB institution decision adopted a broader claim construction for 'displays information selectively across the annunciator window,' allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Google and Samsung's claims against Cerence. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, which weighed heavily in favor of preventing duplicative proceedings.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references Yook, Bauer, and Lee. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of multi-screen user interfaces.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in an IPR petition, arguing the technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references like Dua and Giobbi. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are merely well-known concepts applied to secure authentication systems.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.