IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 98 of 159 · 4,764 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding its 3D NAND memory patents. The petition challenges claims based on obviousness over prior art reference Toyama et al., asserting that specific modifications are predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D NAND memory technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 10 based on Toyama's First Exemplary Structure, moving the case toward trial preparation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments successfully defended its 7,496,342 patent against ParkerVision’s Director Review request, which sought to overturn the PTAB’s institution and obviousness findings. The Board affirmed that claims 18‑21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and Macnally, and the review request was denied.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00934 concerning patent 7,496,342 owned by ParkerVision.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated initiated an IPR challenging ParkerVision's frequency down-conversion receiver claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references, including Tayloe and Macnally, render the claimed apparatus obvious.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated successfully challenged ParkerVision's patent claims regarding RF signal processing via an IPR petition. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to the institution of the case for substantive analysis.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments (TI) successfully secured the institution of its IPR against ParkerVision, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that TI's evidence was sufficient at this stage to overcome arguments regarding inherency and simulation data reliability.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB found that dependent claims 19-21 were unpatentable over prior art references DeMaw and Macnally. The decision hinged on the petitioner's successful demonstration via computer simulation that routine circuit optimizations fell within the scope of the cited prior art.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038. They jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media petitions the PTAB Director to review a Board decision that upheld claims of a web‑ad tracking patent. The petitioner asserts the Board ignored prior art and admissions that render the claims obvious. It seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka have responded to DISH’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of patent 8,868,772 are unpatentable should stand. They contend DISH’s arguments are outside the scope of review and that the prior art clearly discloses continuous playback.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
DISH Technologies requests a Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The petition alleges procedural and substantive errors, including improper theory shifting and misinterpretation of prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB erred in instituting an IPR against Samsung by ignoring the Fintiv factors and the rescinded 2022 Guidance Memo. The company seeks a denial of institution and an extension of the filing deadline.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
The PTAB denied Duration Media's request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of IPR2024‑00937 concerning patent 11,741,482. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
The PTAB affirmed all ten claims of the ’329 ad‑viewability patent, finding Duration Media failed to prove obviousness over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins. Claim constructions on “render,” “replacement advertisement,” and the “in‑response‑to” step were adopted.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioners' requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies' streaming patent, leaving the original decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
A joint notice was filed by DISH Technologies and the petitioners confirming that the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00918 contains no confidential information, allowing it to be publicly released.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenged a patent covering vacuum cleaner apparatus, arguing that all 15 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies heavily on combining well-known configurations from references like Butler, Peng, and Lehmann to demonstrate predictable results in cleaning device design.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media LLC challenged Rich Media Club LLC's patents, asserting that claims 1-14 related to viewability measurement are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed technology is obvious when combining prior art references like Koeppel and Seo.
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.