TransCore, LP v. Hand Held Products, Inc.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsLiTL LLC

Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.vsBishop Display Tech LLC

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.

Meta Platforms, Inc.vsDialect, LLC

Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.

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

Mercedes-Benz seeks to invalidate all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,352,020, alleging they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Google LLC et al.vsART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of ART Research’s ’001 patent, which covers video‑annotation features used in social‑network contexts. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.