Optoelectronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
19 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 19 total
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully opposed Accelight Technologies’ request for director review, arguing the March 11 memo was inapplicable and that the petition’s grounds were weak. The PTAB upheld the director’s discretionary denial of institution for the IPR.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies, a small business, seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Applied Optoelectronics’ optical transceiver patent. The petition emphasizes strong anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that the patent owner’s conduct and the case’s complexity favor institution.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules. The petition relies on anticipation by the Mizue patent and obviousness via Li and Liu utility models. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cambridge Industries' request to review the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Applied Optoelectronics' patents, leaving the prior institution denials in place.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended its 9,523,826 patent as the PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ inter partes review petition. The Board found no abuse of discretion, rejecting the petitioner’s new data and APA arguments.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries seeks a Director rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of IPR2025‑00435, arguing that the “settled expectations” rule lacks statutory basis and unfairly protects older patents. The petition cites statutory provisions, case law, and district‑court data to demonstrate the rule’s inconsistency with patent law and the APA.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial of Cambridge Industries’ IPR petition. The petitioner’s request for rehearing, based on new informal survey data, was rejected as unsupported and lacking any APA or due‑process violation.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Maxell’s 7,850,313 projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 10, and 12 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 9,547,226, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Kurosaki, Miyamae, and Kitano references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,313,024 optical‑module patent, asserting anticipation by two prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute review despite discretionary denial arguments.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’887 patent, asserting that the claimed stepped‑profile substrate and edge‑mounted TOSA modules are anticipated or obvious over prior patents by Kuhara and Ho.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of its IPR against BOE Technology Group, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the new Director’s guidance did not apply.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed an IPR petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent on passive electronic components and OLED displays. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious based on various combinations of prior art, including Ingle, Hasei, Hanamura, and Egitto.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
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.