User interface technologies — US PTAB Patent Cases
7 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 7 total
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition to invalidate ten claims of Multifold's UI patent, arguing obviousness over Purcell/Nicholas and Gillespie/Yook prior art. The petition also challenges discretionary denial and seeks institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola petition IPR to invalidate Multifold’s 9,158,494 patent covering dual‑screen UI methods, asserting that earlier Seo, Yook and Choi disclosures anticipate or make the claims obvious.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Multifold’s 8,842,080 patent covering multi‑display icon handling on handheld devices. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over Japanese patents Ogawa, Yook, and Choi and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple submits an authorized response opposing Smith Interface Technologies' Director Review request, asserting that the PTAB correctly found motivation to combine prior art references. The brief emphasizes that Smith’s arguments mischaracterize the combination and lack undisputed technical evidence.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision that found its UI‑menu patent obvious. The patent owner argues the Board lacked a proper motivation analysis for combining the Ahn and Hinckley references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple filed an authorized response opposing Smith Interface’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly applied obviousness law to the touch‑and‑hold gesture combination. The Board’s factual findings and motivation‑to‑combine analysis were supported by extensive record evidence and expert testimony.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
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.