IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 125 of 159 · 4,764 total
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam, LLC have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,916,483. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of further contest.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,945,885 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,916,483, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB refused to institute an IPR against Delta Electronics’ power‑converter patent. The petition argues that petitioners should be allowed to rely on the patent owner’s infringement claim constructions, even if they disagree with them, citing a split among PTAB panels.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Vicor Corporation's request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2024-00704 concerning Delta Electronics' patent 8,711,580. No further substantive rulings on claim patentability were made.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Delta Faucet’s patent on an illuminated faucet system survives the PTAB’s review, with the Board affirming the patentability of claims 10 and 19 over the cited prior art. The Patent Owner’s response urges the Director to deny Kohler’s request for review, emphasizing the conclusory nature of Kohler’s expert testimony.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler’s IPR against Delta Faucet’s illuminated faucet patent continues after the Director issued a new claim construction. The patent owner argues the Board’s findings should stand and that the Director’s action violates the APA.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler seeks reversal of the Board’s non‑obviousness rulings after a Director Review found that Tseng teaches side‑emitting light and Tse teaches translucent material, arguing that multiple claims of the Delta Faucet patent are obvious.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The PTAB issued an order extending by 30 days the deadline to issue a decision on remand in the IPR between Kohler and Delta Faucet over U.S. Patent 10,393,363. The extension is justified by the volume of grounds and claims raised in the parties' briefs.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s final decision that upheld the validity of claims 10 and 19 of its illuminated fixture patent. The petition alleges factual errors and ignored expert admissions, seeking reversal of the Board’s findings.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied its institution petition for IPR2024-00706, challenging the Board’s handling of expert testimony. The email urges the Director to institute the case and defer factual findings to trial.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,819,263 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes that no merits have been decided.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under federal statutes.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00705 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. initiated this Petition challenging the patentability of MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s claims related to Power Management/DVFS technology. The petitioner asserts multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103) based on combinations of prior art references like Nowka, Borkar, Nicol, and Iyengar.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Petition challenging key claims of Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The challenger argues that the claimed power supply apparatus is rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references in DC-DC Converters technology.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT, Inc. filed a Petition challenging all 20 claims of Medtronic's '483 Patent based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Watson and Schwartz—render the implantable drug delivery device unpatentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging all 64 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that MediaTek demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by combining prior art references Nowka and Borkar in the field of integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR challenge against MOSAID regarding power management technology. Despite a dissenting judge arguing for reasonable likelihood based on Nowka and Borkar, the Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or intrinsic support for its obviousness theories.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Vicor Corporation's IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the argument that Petitioner relied on impermissible hindsight bias when combining prior art references for obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied Vicor Corporation's request to institute IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc.'s patent 8711580, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Delta Faucet Company et al., challenging claims related to illuminated showerheads. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds, advancing the dispute to trial.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Director granted review, vacating parts of the Final Written Decision in a Kohler vs. Delta Faucet IPR, remanding claims 10 and 19 for further analysis.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 24 claims of the patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a broad construction for key terms like 'outer illumination surface' and 'translucent light pipe,' supporting the finding of obviousness across multiple grounds.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Board found that claims 1, 2, and 9 were unpatentable over prior art references Tseng and Mizuno based on obviousness. The remaining claims (3-8 and 10-24) were deemed patentable.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap requests Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Eagle View’s geo‑temporal property‑database patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied procedural rules, penalized its claim‑chart format and expert declaration length, and ignored substantive prior‑art mappings.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap's request for Director Review of the earlier institution denial in the IPR against Eagle View's patent.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Eagle View Technologies' patent 10671648. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Harris and Florance. This challenge focuses on geo-temporal database indexing and querying methods.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Nearmap US against Eagle View Technologies regarding a property database patent (10671648). The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to provide a detailed, non-bare-quotation explanation linking prior art disclosures to the 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.