IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 60 of 218 · 6,517 total
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.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,123,463 covering MRAM technology, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital seeks an IPR of FBA Operating Co.’s RV‑leveling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Thorpe, Clark, Garceau and TealLevel. The petition urges the PTAB to institute review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of Barco’s ’951 patent covering wireless meeting‑room technology, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and arguing that the examiner erred by not considering those references.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Barco’s wireless presentation patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and examiner error.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of Barco’s U.S. Patent 11,403,237, alleging obviousness over Kaplan‑Mardiks and Maeda‑Deforche combinations and arguing examiner error for not considering Deforche.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink petitions the PTAB to cancel nine claims of Barco’s ’676 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references (Ono, Uchida, Deforche, Grimshaw). The petition argues the examiner failed to consider these references and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Petitioner Amazon challenges 40 claims of Nokia's '701 patent in an IPR petition. The central argument is that combinations of prior art, specifically run/level coding techniques (Tsai) and context-switching methods (VCEG-L28), render the claimed image compression technology obvious.
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.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully secured institution of its IPR against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding MTJ technology claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to support obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including Bowen and Sunai.
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 secured the institution of its IPR against Barco N.V., challenging patent 11422951 on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Uchida and Grimshaw, leading to the continuation of the dispute.
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.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Yealink against Barco, challenging 5 claims related to electronic tools for meetings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the combination of prior art references Kaplan and Mardiks.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent (11223601), challenging all 16 claims on grounds of obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were sufficiently compelling, leading to a trial phase.
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.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.
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.