Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. NL Giken Inc.

IPR2024-01345

Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01345
Judge(s)
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, AND ANDREW L. NALVEN
Decision Date
9 November 2024

Detailed Summary

In this Institution Decision, Amazon.com, Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against NL Giken Inc.'s patent (9948968). The petitioner argued that the claimed television set features were obvious over prior art references Lee and Hunt, specifically regarding user viewing status recall for both broadcast and digital programs. Crucially, the Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments concerning means-plus-function limitations for terms like 'designated software controller,' finding sufficient structure in the claims themselves. The institution decision authorized trial proceedings on all 12 challenged claims.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amazon.com, Inc. et al. vs NL Giken Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00794

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.

patentIPR2025-00990

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC

Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.

patentIPR2025-00602

Amgen Inc. et al.vsBristol-Myers Squibb Company

Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s 10,174,113 melanoma immunotherapy patent, arguing the claims are obvious over public clinical‑trial data and lack written‑description support for the 480 mg dose.

patentIPR2025-00618

Microsoft CorporationvsEdge Networking Systems, LLC

Microsoft Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness grounds (102 and 103).

patentIPR2025-00757

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call