IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 79 of 218 · 6,517 total
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,262,864 before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to dismissal of the proceedings.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, and the parties seek dismissal to preserve resources.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,912,257, leading the PTAB to dismiss the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their IPR dispute over wireless charging patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. No merits were decided.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00996, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,083,204 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,626,461 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and cites public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑46 of Chiaro Technology’s ‘380 breast‑pump patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition stresses examiner error and cites strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 regarding 3D voxel data processing used in medical imaging, asserting anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Sekiguchi and Partain. The claims are broadly challenged across multiple statutory grounds (102 and 103) by 3Shape A/S et al., citing related district court litigation.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an IPR petition challenging Medit Corporation’s patent on digital dentistry technology. The petitioner argues that the claimed 3D scanning methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on combining prior art systems.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an Initial Petition challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner targets multiple claim subsets using Trousset, Durbin, and Kariathungal as evidence of obviousness.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S et al. filed an opening petition challenging Medit Corporation's patent (7912257) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed real-time 3D dental scanning method is predictable when combining prior art disclosures from Kopelman and Quadling.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC has initiated a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 held by Songbird Tech, LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims covering voice messaging and web communication systems are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This challenge targets fundamental components like audio encoding/decoding and browser-resident applications.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations challenges Powermat Technologies' patent 9,083,204 regarding inductive charging technology. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references, including Onishi and Purdy.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (8626461). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds regarding inductive power coupling technology.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that all 46 challenged claims of the '380 patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully argued obviousness (103) over various prior art references, including Chang, Fang, and Yuen, concerning breast pump systems.
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.