IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 109 of 218 · 6,517 total
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on mobile interface features. The core argument centers on obviousness, asserting that combining prior art teachings regarding gestures (Ahn) and visual feedback (Chaudhri '842) renders the claims unpatentable. This challenge targets key functionality in Human-Computer Interaction.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging patent 10656754, arguing that the claimed UI transition methods are obvious over a combination of Ahn's mobile UI and Chaudhri '842's state transition techniques. The petitioner asserts that POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve usability and provide sensory feedback during gestures.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging 25 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent related to touch screen interface design. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious over prior art combining gesture recognition and visual state transition techniques.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 related to hydrofoil watercraft. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core features including passive stability and propulsion systems.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. challenged MHL Custom's hydrofoil watercraft patent via petition, arguing that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references. The petitioner cited documents like EvoloReport and Woolley to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness across multiple claims related to stability and control.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges The Procter & Gamble Company's patent (11540999) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed deodorant stick compositions are merely basic concepts already known or readily derivable from existing natural deodorant prior art.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd has filed an IPR petition challenging Patent No. 8307286 owned by WellcomeMat, LLC. The Petitioner asserts that Claims 13 and 17 are unpatentable due to anticipation (Section 102) and multiple instances of obviousness (Section 103).
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Head Sport GmbH initiated an Inter Partes Review against Vermont Safety Developments LLC, challenging claims related to ski binding systems and injury prevention. The petitioner argues that various claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Dodge, Howell, Gulick, and Sittmann. The Board determined the petition was meritorious, leading to institution.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display filed a Petition challenging the validity of 16 claims in Pictiva Displays' OLED patent (8723164). The petition asserts that the core structural elements of the display are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references. This action directly challenges the scope and enforceability of Pictiva's technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Challenger Petition against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding patent 10656754. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over a combination of prior art patents (Ahn and Chaudhri '842). This challenges the validity of the patent covering gesture-based user interface display techniques.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging 37 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10649580). The core argument is that the claimed touchscreen interaction and zooming widgets are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on combinations of prior art from Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, Ording, and Hayward. Apple contends that known techniques were predictable solutions available to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,649,578 held by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references, specifically Shiplacoff and a combination of Shiplacoff with Nan. This proceeding addresses fundamental questions regarding gesture recognition in touch screen interfaces.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,642,413 owned by Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-equipped touch screen systems. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Ahn, Chaudhri-842, and Hinkley. This challenge targets core aspects of modern user interface design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has initiated an IPR petition challenging Oura Health's patent claims related to health monitoring and fitness tracking. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Ahmed, Wisbey, and Shiga.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics challenges Oura Health's wearable computing patents via IPR proceedings, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to gesture recognition and biosensing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging ASUS's '052 patent claims related to random access procedures in LTE/5G technology. The challenge asserts that the claimed elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references, including Tang, Löhr, and Tirronen.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has petitioned the PTAB, arguing that U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978 is unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Kahn, Krasner, and Vingralek renders numerous claims obvious in the field of networked data storage.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7814170) on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed distributed file system architecture is predictable when combining prior art references Kahn et al. and Vingralek R.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed distributed network features are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references Skagerwall and Vingralek would motivate a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art to implement the claims for improved scalability.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC challenges Kove IO, Inc.'s patent claims regarding distributed data management under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is anticipated by Kahn et al. and rendered obvious when combined with Vingralek R.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T-Mobile USA challenges Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, arguing that its claims covering multi-carrier transmission are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that known techniques and combinations of references render the patented technology predictable.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor challenges Technoprobe's '885 patent via an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior art references. The petitioner relies heavily on reference Kim, combined with Schmid, Fan, Bross, and a 2016 SWTest Presentation to invalidate multiple claims related to probe card design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Ouraring's patent (11874702) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board determined that the challenges based on prior art met the institutional threshold for trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied a Post-Grant Review filed by Samsung against Oura Health's patent '701 because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.