Sensors — US PTAB Patent Cases
12 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 12 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00082 after reviewing discretionary and non-discretionary considerations. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies opposed Revvo Technologies' petition, arguing that Revvo used inconsistent claim constructions across forums without justification. The Board affirmed the Director’s order vacating the institution, denying the petition.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies seeks to reinstate an inter partes review of its automotive sensor patent, arguing that the Board’s earlier institution was proper and that its narrow claim construction is supported by the specification.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a patent dispute involving Revvo and Cerebrum, remanding the case for further proceedings after clarifying that petitioners must explain inconsistent claim construction positions across forums.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that the ’648 patent’s preamble is non‑limiting and that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. It also attacks the patent owner’s § 315(b) time‑bar defense.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's '648 patent, arguing that its inertial measurement unit (IMU) technology is obvious. The petition cites multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in claims 1 and 4.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's angular rate sensor patent (6508122), arguing the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Fujiyoshi with Townsend or Cox renders the claimed technology predictable in the field of MEMS sensors.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo successfully petitioned for institution against American GNC Corporation's patent claims regarding Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural challenges raised by the Patent Owner.
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.