IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 74 of 218 · 6,517 total
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving NTECH’s patent 9,923,947. The Board limited the Patent Owner’s response to five pages and a five‑day deadline, prohibiting new evidence.
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 all ten claims of NTECH's 9,215,261 patent on personalized media programming, arguing obviousness over Whitehead, Cristofalo, and Marcus ’904 references.
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 v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, asserting that claims 16‑30 are obvious or anticipated over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog references and urging the Board 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.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 8,886,753, which covers personalized media programming. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. Institution of the IPR is requested.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,145,704, asserting that prior art references Whitehead, Cristofalo and Marcus ’904 make all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of NTECH's video‑recommendation patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over earlier systems such as Marcus156 and Harbick.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging NTECH’s U.S. Pat. 8,875,185, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art video‑programming references. The petition seeks institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Rule 14’s ’712 data‑mining patent, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a broad set of prior art covering collection selection and non‑textual data queries.
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.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
Alamar Biosciences challenged Olink Proteomics' patent on grounds of obviousness (103), leading the PTAB to institute proceedings for claims 1-20. The Board found sufficient evidence that at least some claimed inventions are unpatentable, initiating a trial phase.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s attempt to invalidate NTECH Properties' patents based on obviousness was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that TikTok failed to adequately explain how its technology satisfied the claim limitations over cited prior art, specifically regarding media feed selection.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s IPR challenge against NTECH Properties failed, as the PTAB found insufficient evidence to establish obviousness over cited prior art. The Board rejected all grounds, concluding that TikTok could not satisfy the claim limitations using Whitehead or Cristofalo/Marcus '904.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TikTok against NTECH's patent 8886753, allowing trial on claims 1-10. The challenge centers on obviousness over prior art related to media programming and content delivery.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s IPR against NTECH Properties, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, meaning trial will proceed on all challenged claims. The Board adopted a plain and ordinary meaning for 'media stream' while rejecting Petitioner’s arguments regarding specific claim limitations related to output signals.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok's IPR challenge against NTECH Properties failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying all grounds of obviousness. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the cited prior art taught or suggested the limitations of the challenged claims in the video streaming patent.
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 v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR against claims 16-30 of the '218 patent, finding sufficient evidence to overcome initial defenses. The Board found that Petitioner successfully demonstrated a rationale for combining prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) to meet the institutional standard for obviousness.
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.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven of the ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments, specifically using Whitehead as primary evidence for aggregation and content delivery systems.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding most claims (1-12 and 14-18) unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art. Claims 13 and 19-24 were found patentable, despite significant dispute over claim construction terms like 'media stream.'
Genius Sports v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 16-30 of the patent are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Ellis and Spivey, teach or suggest all limitations of several challenged claims related to live event streaming and data synchronization.
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.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This is an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich Section) concerning a request by Mathys & Squire LLP under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a concluded revocation action (ACT_464985/2023) between Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Claimant) and Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University (Defendants) regarding EP3056563. The main proceedings had been disposed of by way of settlement. The Court granted access to the written pleadings and evidence, subject to redaction of personal data and confidentiality of certain commercially sensitive information relating to the Claimant's product pipeline timeline, and granted leave to appeal.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_364/2024, UPC_CoA_393/2024)
A German patent attorney applied for registration in the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Registrar rejected the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate completion of one of the specifically listed courses or certificates under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, finding that the applicant's 'Münchner Jahr' training from 1997-1998, while potentially covering equivalent content, did not constitute proof of successful completion of the specifically required 'Recht für Patentanwältinnen und Patentanwälte' course at Fernuniversität Hagen or the 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau.'
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.
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.