IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 199 of 218 · 6,517 total
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
Unified Patent Court decision.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’111 patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial that blocked its IPR on three MPLS‑related claims of Orckit’s ’821 patent. The petition alleges the Board’s claim construction was unsupported and that the prior‑art combination teaches the challenged limitation.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Court decision.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation have reached a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDup Manufacturing filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s decision that claims 3 and 8 of its ‘252 patent remain patentable.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 10,652,111. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Court decision.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Intellectual Ventures was rejected. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Court decision.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Seasonal Specialties' patent covering series LED circuits with bypass resistors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are anticipated or obvious based on prior art disclosures in lighting technology.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252) covering LED bypass circuits and series lighting technology. The petitioner asserts that claims 1-14 are unpatentable based on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references. This proceeding centers on whether the claimed circuit details were already known in the field.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Petitioners challenge 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8089946, arguing they are obvious over prior art references like Walton and Learned. The central argument is that supporting legacy protocol modes in multi-user environments was a well-known concept in the field of wireless communications.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung petitions to invalidate Collision's '071 patent, arguing that its Multi-user Detection improvements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioners assert that prior art references (Jin, Baum, Tsai) combine known techniques in MIMO systems to render the claimed features non-inventive.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging several claims related to Globally Asynchronous Locally Synchronous (GALS) clocking and Dynamic Voltage Scaling (DVS). The Petition asserts multiple grounds of obviousness, arguing that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed microprocessor architectures predictable.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging Orckit Corporation's patent (8,830,821) on grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge centers on the combination of Doshi’s MPLS path selection with reoptimization techniques from prior art like Guichard and Huang.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,545,740 held by Orckit Corporation, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed bi-directional link aggregation and hash-based selection mechanisms were already known in prior art references like Bruckman, Basso, and Holdsworth. This challenge targets core networking technology used for load balancing.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo challenged the validity of a University of Rochester patent related to multiple clock domain microprocessors. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Shenai and Georgiou.
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.