Tableau Software, LLC et al. v. iCharts LLC

IPR2024-01388

Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01388
Filing Date
26 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01129

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC

Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patentIPR2024-00370

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.

The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.

patentIPR2025-00862

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.vsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.

patentIPR2025-00232

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to replace the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims.

patentIPR2024-00821

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsBroadphone, LLC

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.

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