Snap Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.

The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.vsLonghorn Automotive Group LLC

Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.

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

Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC

Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of Headwater Research's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding obviousness, leading to the institution of the case. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of wireless communication technology standards and prior art combinations.

Google LLCvsBrodTi Inc.

Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.