Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Oura Health Oy et al.

Intel Corporation et al.vsTELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.

Intel Corporation initiated this Petition challenging the validity of Ericsson's patent (7151430), asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Taniguchi, Midya, and Raghavan to demonstrate that claimed features in inductive coupling/antenna design were already known or suggested.

MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.

MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.

Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.

Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims related to conditional access and DRM systems were unpatentable over prior art (Russ). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103), leading to institution of the IPR.

Illumina, Inc.vsMolecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.

The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.

Genius Sports Ltd.vsSportsCastr Inc.

Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.