IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 110 of 218 · 6,517 total
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T Services Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. was denied by the PTAB, as all six Fintiv factors weighed in favor of discretionary denial. The Board found that procedural issues, including substantial delays and parallel district court litigation, outweighed the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding beam management technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding gesture recognition technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Ahn and Chaudhri for Claim 2.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge 91 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB, citing excessive and unconcise parallel petition filings.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge nine claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited excessive parallel filings and lack of conciseness in arguments as the reason for denying institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s motion to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was granted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over Ahn and Chaudhri for numerous claims related to gesture recognition and user interface transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Smith Interface Technologies' patent on gesture recognition, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior art references Ahn and Chaudhri.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Smith Interface Technologies' patent, citing the need for judicial efficiency despite the complex claim structure. The Board determined that only three of seven concurrent petitions were justified.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully petitioned PTAB to challenge Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10966915), leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a material error in allowing claims over prior art like Lesniak and Native/Bianchi '254.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned against Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent, leading the PTAB to institute the case after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board found multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) across various claims using combinations of prior art references.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Aylo Freesites Ltd in challenging WellcomeMat's patentability. The challenge focused on claim 17, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Head Sport GmbH against Vermont Safety Developments LLC regarding ski binding systems. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing without an agreed-upon claim construction for 'release logic.'
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to graphical user interfaces and touch screen manipulation. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge a patent from Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board utilized its discretion to deny institution because this petition was ranked last among seven parallel challenges.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully obtained institution at the PTAB against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan, leading to an institutional decision.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-based touch interfaces. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple's claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley. This decision sets the stage for a full trial on patent validity.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a high-stakes IPR concerning wearable biosensor technology, specifically smart rings. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102) to proceed with trial on 17 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims. This denial was based on procedural rules regarding pre-institution claim disclaimer.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR challenge against Oura Health's '859 Patent. The Board found that the second challenge, based on prior art including Schröder and Mestas, met the threshold for obviousness (103).
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor challenges Technoprobe's wafer probing patent (11035885) before the PTAB, arguing anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, instituting the IPR proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding progressive menu sliding during gesture detection.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that Smith Interface Technologies' claims were obvious. The Board found no persuasive evidence in the prior art combination to support the claimed progressive blurring or menu appearance during gesture detection.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 B2 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that various combinations of prior art references taught or suggested the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions and structures.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found that the claimed deodorant stick compositions were anticipated or obvious over various combinations of prior art references. This decision heavily favors the Petitioner, Dr. Squatch, LLC, by invalidating the patent's scope.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Choulis, Sugiura, and Thompson. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'matrix material' and found multiple grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the claims patentable over the cited prior art. The Petitioner (Apple Inc.) failed to demonstrate that combining Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording would teach a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art how to implement the claimed translucent virtual display layer widget overlaying image content.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art references Shiplacoff and Nan. The decision concluded that the combination of gestures taught by these references would yield predictable results for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found claims related to gesture-equipped touch screens unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley) taught all limitations through predictable results.
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.