IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 80 of 159 · 4,764 total
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has requested a Director Review of the IPR against Dr. Squatch, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their IPR dispute over a probe‑card patent. They jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia and Ericsson settled the IPR against Cobblestone Wireless’s 7,924,802 patent and asked the PTAB to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to invoke discretionary denial provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Oura’s wearable smart‑ring patent, arguing obviousness over Sun and Kruse references and indefiniteness of claim 6. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under the FINTIV provision.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patents held by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. and Celerity IP, LLC. The core dispute centers on claims related to beamforming control signaling in massive MIMO systems. Petitioners assert that the claimed novelty is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The challenge focuses on claims related to gesture detection and advanced user interface features like blurring effects and card metaphor multitasking. This action aims to invalidate key patents in the mobile computing space.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. petitioned the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,656,754 on touchscreen gesture and display effects. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over a combination of Ahn and Chaudhri '842, specifically regarding blurring background elements based on touch gestures. The petition was deemed compelling enough to warrant institution.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Head Sport GmbH initiated an Inter Partes Review against Vermont Safety Developments LLC, challenging claims related to ski binding systems and injury prevention. The petitioner argues that various claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Dodge, Howell, Gulick, and Sittmann. The Board determined the petition was meritorious, leading to institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging 37 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent (10649580). The core argument is that the claimed touchscreen interaction and zooming widgets are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on combinations of prior art from Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, Ording, and Hayward. Apple contends that known techniques were predictable solutions available to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,649,578 held by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references, specifically Shiplacoff and a combination of Shiplacoff with Nan. This proceeding addresses fundamental questions regarding gesture recognition in touch screen interfaces.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,642,413 owned by Smith Interface Technologies regarding gesture-equipped touch screen systems. The petitioner argues that several claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Ahn, Chaudhri-842, and Hinkley. This challenge targets core aspects of modern user interface design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has initiated an IPR petition challenging Oura Health's patent claims related to health monitoring and fitness tracking. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Ahmed, Wisbey, and Shiga.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition to challenge OuraRing's patent 10139859 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that ten claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when combining prior art references Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas. This challenges the core structural elements of wearable biometric ring devices.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging 13 claims of Kove IO, Inc.'s patent (7233978) related to distributed computing and location services. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Skagerwall, Vingralek, Krasner, and Sato. Google also argues against the discretionary denial of the petition.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,814,170 held by Kove IO, Inc., asserting that the claims are anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition centers on prior art references related to distributed data management and networking systems.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Kove IO, Inc.'s patent via IPR, arguing that the claimed distributed network features are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references Skagerwall and Vingralek would motivate a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art to implement the claims for improved scalability.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T-Mobile USA challenges Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, arguing that its claims covering multi-carrier transmission are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that known techniques and combinations of references render the patented technology predictable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Ouraring's patent (11874702) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board determined that the challenges based on prior art met the institutional threshold for trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied a Post-Grant Review filed by Samsung against Oura Health's patent '701 because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T Services Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. was denied by the PTAB, as all six Fintiv factors weighed in favor of discretionary denial. The Board found that procedural issues, including substantial delays and parallel district court litigation, outweighed the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding beam management technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s attempt to challenge 91 claims of Smith Interface Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB, citing excessive and unconcise parallel petition filings.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully petitioned PTAB to challenge Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10966915), leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a material error in allowing claims over prior art like Lesniak and Native/Bianchi '254.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned against Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent, leading the PTAB to institute the case after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board found multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) across various claims using combinations of prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB against Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s OLED patents, leading to an Institution Decision on all claims. The dispute centers on whether specific materials qualify as 'matrix material' in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (OLEDs).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding claims related to graphical user interfaces and touch screen manipulation. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
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.