Short Summary
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, Tableau Software challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,271,892 owned by iCharts LLC. The patent claims a computer‑implemented system for generating, publishing, and embedding interactive charts. Tableau asserts that each claim is obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references—including the Becerra publication, Couckuyt patent, Keys publication, Moyer publication, Jou publication, and the QlikView Reference and Server Manuals—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues that there is no objective indicia of patentability and that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be improper given parallel district‑court litigation. No institution decision has been made yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tableau Software, LLC et al. vs iCharts LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
uPI Semiconductor Inc.vsForce MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsScale Video Coding LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of the 372 Patent, arguing they are obvious over Shao‑028 and Shao‑423. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).
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.