Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.

Reolink Innovation Inc. et al.vsTHROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.

Petitioner Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,602,448 covering remote wakeup systems in a PTAB petition. The challenge asserts that the patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Zhang, Zill, Liu).

Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

Google’s request for Director Review of an IPR against SoundClear’s LED‑notification patent was denied. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and Fintiv factors justified the discretionary denial.

PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.

PacifiCorp and co-petitioners successfully challenged the '370 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that combinations of prior art references like Vosteen589/Starns or Downs-Boiler/Mass-EPA rendered key claims obvious.

Walmart Inc. et al.vsRavenWhite Security, Inc. et al.

Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art references (Hinton and Varghese) and a lack of written‑description support.

Spotify AB et al.vsTijerino, Manuel

Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.