Wireless power transfer — US PTAB Patent Cases
11 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 11 total
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,083,204 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,626,461 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and cites public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00996, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their IPR dispute over wireless charging patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. No merits were decided.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
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.