US PTAB IP Litigation
2,587 annotated decisions
Page 10 of 108 · 2,587 total
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01220, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to proceed against Credo Technology Group regarding patent 11032111.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The Board denied institution in IPR2025-01238 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
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.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned for institution of its obviousness challenge against BuzzBallz's beverage container patent (11932441). The Board found that the design application introduced new matter, making the claims eligible for review.
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.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Watson Guide IP regarding dental prosthesis claims under 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness, despite disputes over claim language and prior art interpretation.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging claims related to electrically-powered aerosol generators. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of unpatentability, despite narrowing claim construction on 'smoking article' to devices containing tobacco.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB decided to institute PGR proceedings, finding that the Petitioner successfully overcame arguments of Examiner error regarding prior art combinations and claim construction issues. The dispute centers on fire-resistant wall assemblies and truss hangers, with the Board issuing preliminary determinations on key terms like 'planar extension plate' and 'bounding.'
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP successfully challenged the patentability of claims related to low-friction slide systems and mesh layers. The PTAB granted institution after finding likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case toward trial preparation while providing preliminary claim construction guidance on key terms.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on modified PH20 polypeptides in a PGR proceeding. The Board found likelihood of prevailing based on arguments regarding the genus's scope and potential lack of enablement/obviousness.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
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.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
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.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
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.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
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.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
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.