Patent Cases

7,002 decisions across India · US PTAB · European UPC

India 2,823 US PTAB 2,587 European UPC 1,592

Page 20 of 234

patent null

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· IPR2024-01273

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,785,759 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. The challenge asserts that the claims related to numerology bandwidth determination in wireless systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This initial filing details multiple grounds of obviousness, combining various prior art references including Noh, Tooher, Islam, Jiang, and Miao.
patent null

Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2024-01274

Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
patent

3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.

· IPR2024-01276

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.
patent

Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2024-01277

Apple Inc. has filed an IPR challenging NL Giken's content streaming patent, asserting that core bookmarking and next-content navigation features are obvious over prior art references Cordray and Wiser.
patent instituted

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.

· PGR2025-00027

The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
patent instituted

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.

· PGR2025-00028

The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
patent denied

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

· PGR2025-00032

The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
patent denied

Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH

· PGR2025-00037

Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00033

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00039

Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
patent instituted

AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.

· PGR2025-00040

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
patent instituted

Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· PGR2025-00041

Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
patent instituted

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00059

GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00042

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.
patent denied

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC

· PGR2025-00045

Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00050

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00046

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00052

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.
patent instituted

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00053

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
patent instituted

Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA

· PGR2025-00055

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00055, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent instituted

Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.

· PGR2025-00054

Straumann USA successfully petitioned for institution in a Post-Grant Review challenging Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent (12156781). The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement. This sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of disclosure in complex medical device claims.
patent instituted

Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.

· PGR2025-00057

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
patent denied

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· PGR2025-00056

The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
patent instituted

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00186

National Beef Packing Company challenged the '771 patent on obviousness grounds related to modular compositing and microbial testing protocols. The PTAB institution decision was driven by parallel district court litigation and a compelling merits case presented by the petitioner. This sets up significant future challenges in both administrative and judicial forums.
patent instituted

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

· IPR2024-00270

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent 11108595. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and favorable regarding Fintiv factors.
patent null

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00220

WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.
patent null

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.
patent null

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00287

Dropbox, Inc., the petitioner, challenges Motion Offense LLC's patent (US 11611520) in an IPR proceeding. The core argument is that the claimed cloud storage and file transfer methods are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Riepling, Manzano, Meisels, and Garcia.
patent null

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00310

AT&T and other carriers challenged Daingean Technologies' patent (US 10,932,207) in an IPR petition. The challengers argue that the claims related to random access procedures and power control are anticipated or obvious by prior art references Lee1 and Lee2.
patent null

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC

· IPR2024-00314

Ericsson and other petitioners filed an opening petition challenging 7177369's validity on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The challenges focus heavily on the combination of prior art references (Wong, Minn, Lehne) to invalidate claims related to OFDM channel estimation and smart antenna technology.
1 •••192021•••234
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →