IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 43 of 159 · 4,764 total
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. seeks reversal of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated claims of its presentation‑dongle patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board improperly discounted a multi‑patent Crestron license and other commercial‑success evidence, misapplying Ancora precedent. A petition for Director Review has been filed.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight Limited have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01423 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination when parties settle.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal portions of its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01439, asserting that the material contains highly confidential licensing and financial information. The Board must decide whether the confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s right to a complete record.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR against a magnetic tunnel junction patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director review to vacate the institution, arguing that piecemeal review of one of nine related patents is inefficient and contrary to AIA policy.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01447. The company contends the request lacks any showing of error or abuse of discretion and should be denied.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink’s challenge to U.S. Patent 11,422,951. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response filed within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the documents from the public patent file.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The IPR concerning patent 10,890,925 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four USPTO patents, leading the Board to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Rotolight's U.S. Patent 10,197,257, arguing anticipation by Pohlert and obviousness over Mueller and Reichow. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the trial.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Rotolight’s U.S. Patent 10,845,044 covering customizable lighting effects, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Mueller, Edwards, and Astera.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Rotolight’s lighting‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Mueller, Edwards, and Astera references. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Rotolight's 2019 lighting system patent, arguing obviousness over Mueller, Showline, and Choong references and opposing discretionary denial.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. failed its IPR challenge against a patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ). The PTAB denied the petition on obviousness grounds (103), finding that the petitioner could not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds (Grounds 1-6). The patent, related to vehicle leveling systems using smart devices, was deemed potentially invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combining prior art references like Thorpe and Clark.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V., challenging nine claims of patent 10762002 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail, citing combinations of prior art references like Kaplan and Ahmed to establish unpatentability.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.
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.