Executive Summary
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
Related Cases
Intel CorporationvsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10333768.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,949,389 unpatentable. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on Kijima and Suzuki, emphasizing that the prior art did not meet the agreed-upon definition of 'planarization layer' which requires suppressing underlying topography.
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge SherryWear's bra design patent (9808036) on grounds of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision found that Nike had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted claims, leading to trial.
Evenflo Company, Inc.vsBaby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.