IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 143 of 159 · 4,764 total
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00577 (and similarly in IPR2024-00671), leaving the original decisions in place.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
An email from the PTAB Director authorizes ADC Solutions Auto to submit a limited 15‑page response to Director Review requests in IPR2024-00577 and IPR2024-00671, with no new evidence permitted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB Director has received a review request from the patent owner in IPR2024-00446. Comcast may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner presented multiple grounds combining prior art references like Renken, Maycock, Kidambi, and Zhang. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's patent covering jump start apparatus technology, asserting that key claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed USB charging features are obvious when combining prior art references like Richardson with Zhao or Yu with Paparrizos.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense's patent 8646042, asserting that the claims are obvious over various prior art references including Giobbi and Broadcom. The petitioner argues that combining disclosures of PDKs and RDCs makes the claimed hybrid device predictable for proximity-based access control.
Dell Inc. et al. v.--
Dell Inc. et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR2024-00564, challenging SOFTEX's '649 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103). The Board found that the Becton factors strongly favored institution, despite some Fintiv factors weighing against denial.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner 3Shape A/S et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent claims, asserting that all 20 claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely heavily on combining prior art references such as Zhang and Babayoff to demonstrate predictable improvements in dental imaging technology.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner asserts that the challenged dental imaging claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Sommer, Rubbert, Malfliet, and Estépar. The petition details how specific elements related to bite registration methods merely aggregate known technologies from these sources.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding cable modem architecture claims 18 and 19 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standard for institution, specifically failing to demonstrate obviousness over various prior art combinations.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully petitioned for institution against The Noco Company's patent covering portable jump starter apparatuses. The Board found that the prior art presented in the petition was not substantially the same as what was before the Office during prosecution, satisfying the Advanced Bionics framework. This allows the case to proceed to substantive review on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding network monitoring technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness over various prior art references.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent covering intra-oral scanning and 3D modeling. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over combinations of Zhang and Babayoff.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding claims in patent 8223775. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations, including Rabenko and Kim, particularly concerning modular hardware upgrades.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast Cable Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications' patent covering BCN modulation/bit-loading. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting the combination of prior art references as obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Comcast's IPR against Entropic, finding insufficient evidence that prior art references (Saey and Gross) disclosed or suggested the claimed composite SNR-related metric. This decision reinforces the burden on petitioners to demonstrate specific support for key limitations in complex technical claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully argued that multiple claims in the patent were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to an institution decision by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertions of obviousness across various combinations of prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against the '690 patent, arguing that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious claims related to channel assessment probes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to the scheduling of trial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi ’1573, Giobbi ’1394, and Dua. The Board successfully rejected arguments regarding means-plus-function interpretation, finding key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' conveyed sufficient definite structure. This decision represents a significant win for the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that the prior art references, particularly Rabenko and Gaspar, rendered the claimed cable modem architecture obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically rejecting grounds based on Renken's architecture and Aggarwal's limitations. The Board concluded that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos for multi-channel functionality.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that several claims of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Key findings included that Claim 1 was anticipated by IEEE-802.16, and specific combinations of prior art rendered other claims obvious.
Amayse As v.Joydeb Mukherjee & Anr
Amayse A/S alleges that Joydeb Mukherjee is infringing its patent related to advertisement elements during a cricket match. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's products are infringing upon their patented technology.
Avita International Ltd And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed by Avita International Ltd challenging the rejection of its PCT application (PCT/1B2017/051404) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court granted exemptions for filing documents but directed that notice be issued to the respondent, listing the matter for further hearing.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited filed an appeal challenging the order that rejected its post-grant opposition against a patent granted to Philip Morris Products S.A. The court issued notices and set the matter for further hearing.
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.