IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 218 · 6,517 total
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ParkerVision’s ’593 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate nine claims of Multifold’s ’756 patent covering split‑screen gestures on multi‑display devices, citing Yook, Lee, Aguilar and Purcell as prior art and arguing against discretionary denial.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Multifold’s ’153 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’833 HEVC video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over Rusert, Zheng, Nakamura and WD4. The petition argues the examiner ignored critical prior art and seeks institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Motorola and Google against Multifold, challenging 11 claims of patent 9058153. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners would prevail on unpatentability grounds based on prior art.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla Inc. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC for battery charging system claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge ParkerVision, Inc.'s '593 patent in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The Board instituted the trial on all 20 challenged claims based on obviousness (103), despite arguments regarding constitutional due process and duplication of district court litigation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR challenge against Nokia's data analytics patent (8996693). The Board granted institution based on a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, focusing heavily on preliminary claim constructions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia regarding video compression methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims of the '593 patent unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's view on claim construction for "power efficiency," allowing indirect measurements (voltage/current) rather than strictly a ratio, which was key to establishing obviousness.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 794 928 B1 owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, relating to compositions and methods for detecting analytes. The court rejected the defendant's preliminary objection on lis pendens related to a parallel German revocation action and refused permission for a subsequent application to amend the patent. The Central Division held that the main request lacked novelty over the prior art document Göransson, and that the auxiliary requests lacked inventive step, revoking the patent in its entirety.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00061 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,792,007, citing covenants not to sue and early‑stage proceedings.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
An exhibit email shows that Google, the petitioner, does not oppose Multifold International’s request to replace a previously filed Request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, asking the Board to accept a corrected filing without additional fees.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless and moved to terminate the IPR over patent 9,496,930. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory termination provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Multifold’s patent, arguing the patent owner’s antedating evidence is insufficient and its declarants lack credibility.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility and Google settled with Multifold International over U.S. Patent 9,146,589, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its dual‑screen smartphone patent, arguing the Board relied on a single dependent claim and ignored substantial antedating evidence. The petition contends the institution is inefficient and better suited for district‑court resolution.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola challenged Multifold’s dual‑screen smartphone patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on a single dependent claim, prompting Multifold to seek Director Review, arguing the Board ignored extensive antedating evidence and violated efficiency guidelines.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola settled their IPR dispute with Multifold over U.S. Patent 9,792,007 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Court decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreements with Multifold International confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties seek to have the covenants not to sue treated as business confidential information and excluded from the public patent file.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. Settlement agreements were kept confidential per Board order.
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.