Executive Summary
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. vs Intellectual Ventures II is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co-petitioners successfully challenged the '370 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that combinations of prior art references like Vosteen589/Starns or Downs-Boiler/Mass-EPA rendered key claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
Apple Inc.vsGinko LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Ginko LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Board found insufficient evidence that cited prior art disclosed the claimed contact permission settings.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.vsST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,589,329 covering an acoustic‑device system. The petition relies on five prior‑art references and asserts §§102/103 unpatentability for all eleven claims.
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.