Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573 owned by Ginko LLC. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to demonstrate with particularity that the cited prior art, such as Robertson, disclosed the specific element of a first permission setting being part of the request to become a contact.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs Ginko LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied the patent owner's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, leaving the original institution rulings intact.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s 7,279,708 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all asserted claims are obvious over four prior‑art references and urges the PTAB to institute the review.
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.