IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 54 of 159 · 4,764 total
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs TikTok and NTECH Properties that Director Review requests for IPR2024-01341 and IPR2024-01343 have been received, setting a five‑business‑day deadline for a brief response and prohibiting new evidence.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 9,923,947 covering custom media programming. The petition relies on three § 103 obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
Alamar Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Olink's 7,883,848 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art combinations such as Kanan/Neri and Baez/Landegren. The petitioner asserts the examiner omitted critical references and that no discretionary factors justify denial.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok's IPR petition against NTECH Properties was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that Petitioner could not adequately teach or suggest key limitations from the cited prior art (Marcus156 and Ferman).
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision was granted, finding sufficient rationale for the Petitioner to combine teachings from prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically found that combining Ellis's content source with Spivey’s live data server devices would improve latency in real-time event delivery.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments because UiPath relied on conclusory assertions regarding motivation-to-combine rather than factual support.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
The petitioner failed to prove the obviousness of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7883848 in a Final Written Decision. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,' defining it as selecting associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide that exhibit the detectable trace.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining Ellis and Spivey taught an 'event socket' to improve latency, while other grounds were also met by the combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
Astellas v.Helios, Riken, Osaka
The Court of First Instance, Central Division (Section Munich), issued an Order regarding an application by Mathys & Squire LLP for access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP3056563. The underlying revocation action had been terminated by settlement on 23 July 2024. The Court held that, following termination of proceedings by settlement, public access to written pleadings and evidence should normally be granted, subject to redaction of personal data and confidential information.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an applicant's request for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration in the list of representatives before the UPC. The applicant claimed to meet the qualification requirements under Article 48(2) of the UPC Agreement, including passing the European qualifying examination and the German patent attorney examination, and argued that his 'Munich Year' training (1997-1998) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at Hagen distance university referenced in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The Registrar had rejected the application, finding that only courses and certificates explicitly listed in Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules could be recognized as qualifying credentials.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any merits were decided.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to end the proceeding before any merits are decided.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s request to deny institution of an IPR covering U.S. Patent 11,463,768. The Board applied Fintiv factors and found no basis to block institution, keeping the challenge alive.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu’s parallel IPR petitions against Piranha Media’s streaming‑technology patent were instituted despite a district court finding all claims invalid under §101. The patent owner seeks Director Review, arguing the panel should have denied institution under Fintiv guidance and the Trial Practice Guide.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against a peer‑to‑peer gaming patent, finding the petition failed the compelling‑merits test. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not teach key claim limitations, resulting in a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition against Proxense’s ’960 patent, seeking to invalidate all 20 claims on the basis of obviousness over Giobbi, Dua and Broadcom references, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697 covering live‑sports video and data streaming. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey and Herzog and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel claims 1‑9.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Proxense’s ’289 patent covering hybrid devices with secure memory and proximity authentication, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent on obviousness grounds, relying on the Ludtke and Kon references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’042 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is not justified.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu challenges Piranha Media Distribution’s patent via Inter Partes Review (IPR), arguing that combining prior art references Eldering-I and Eldering-II renders the claims obvious under 103. The petitioner asserts that user actions like skipping ads constitute a change in viewing parameters, thereby triggering adaptive ad rescheduling taught by the cited prior art.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive regarding live event broadcasting claims. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments that the claimed technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Ellis and Spivey. This sets the stage for a full trial on unpatentability grounds.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for Genius Sports Ltd.'s claims against SportsCastr Inc. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog) taught or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependents based on the preliminary record. This sets a significant hurdle for SportsCastr's patent validity in digital media streaming technology.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against SportsCastr Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board found that claims 1-9 were obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically demonstrating how known techniques could reduce data latency in live sports content delivery.
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.