Power electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
11 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 11 total
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s GaN power transistor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of Nega, Roberts, Otremba and Liu references. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation challenged Monolithic Power Systems' '608 Patent, asserting that claims related to bootstrap refresh control circuits for DC-DC voltage converters are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references, including TI data sheets and patents by Galinski, Li, and Wong, to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB refused to institute an IPR against Delta Electronics’ power‑converter patent. The petition argues that petitioners should be allowed to rely on the patent owner’s infringement claim constructions, even if they disagree with them, citing a split among PTAB panels.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Vicor Corporation's request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2024-00704 concerning Delta Electronics' patent 8,711,580. No further substantive rulings on claim patentability were made.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,819,263 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes that no merits have been decided.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under federal statutes.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,734,481 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and consideration of secondary factors.
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.