IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 64 of 218 · 6,517 total
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
PTAB Director Review requests have been filed for four IPRs involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar’s patent. The petitioner may submit a five‑page response without new evidence, after which the Director will decide on the review.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related crypto trading entities settled their IPR disputes with Intercurrency Software. The Board granted a motion to withdraw the petitions and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement as confidential.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications' IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies' DOCSIS auto‑configuration patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the petitioner's reply adds new, undisclosed arguments, violating the IPR rules. The patent owner seeks dismissal of the new arguments and confirmation of the patent's validity.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,661 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its eight IPR petitions covering a body‑camera patent, arguing the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn institution of 19 claims of its ’540 patent. The Director found the Board erred on Fintiv factors and denied institution, preserving Motorola Solutions’ position.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,026,428 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,026,428 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy and resource efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and patent owner K. Mizra filed a joint request to dismiss their IPR and keep the dismissal agreement confidential. The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their inter partes review disputes over patent 10,986,585, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement documents were ordered kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Omachron’s hand‑vacuum patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed features are well‑known and combinable.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 9,287,982 covering DOCSIS‑EPON auto‑configuration. The petition argues all 11 claims are obvious over the Bernstein and Tsuge patents, alone or combined with the MEF 6.1 specification, and that discretionary denial is improper.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,942,378, which covers multicast encryption in passive optical networks. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art including Murakami, RFC 1112, RFC 4601, and the Yen patent application, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑owners have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 11,449,930 patent covering cross‑border trading with real‑time currency conversion, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate all 12 claims of Intercurrency Software’s cross‑border trading patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems and requesting joinder with a related IPR.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Stellar’s U.S. Pat. 8,310,540, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition adopts the patent owner’s claim constructions and cites extensive prior‑art combinations to seek cancellation of the entire patent.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Stellar’s ’752 surveillance‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analysis and cites admissions made by the patent applicant during prosecution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Cerence Operating Company’s handwriting recognition patents based on obviousness. The petitioners argue that combining prior art references Arai and Fenwick renders the claimed input methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges an ASUS patent regarding 5G NR power control and PHR triggering using multiple prior art references including Ericsson and Huawei. The core argument is obviousness based on predictable combinations within industry standard-setting documents.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. challenges K. Mizra LLC's '608 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding DDR DRAM memory controllers and timing calibration. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Johnson, Stubbs, Moss, and Liou.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications initiated an IPR challenging Touchstream Technologies' patent on media playback systems, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge centers on combining prior art references like Danciu and Mahajan to show predictable results in command translation.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stellar, LLC's patent (8928752) covering circular buffer memory management. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple obviousness grounds over prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiedler.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features 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.