TransCore, LP v. Hand Held Products, Inc.

IPR2024-00443

Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00443
Filing Date
1 December 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00708

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.

patentIPR2024-00835

Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.

GOMACO challenges the PTAB’s decision on a slipform paver patent, asserting the Board failed to resolve a key claim‑construction issue and erred in its obviousness and copying analyses. The patent owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.

patentPGR2025-00059

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University et al.

GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.

patentIPR2025-00877

Google LLCvsCellular South Inc

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-01437

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsBarco N.V.

Barco N.V. moved to seal its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01437, arguing that the licensing and financial information it submitted is highly confidential. The motion cites Argentum factors and prior PTAB decisions to justify sealing.

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