US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 127 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Nov 4, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00023
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for a Director Review of institution decisions in four PGR cases involving Pioneer Hi-Bred’s seed patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
patent · Nov 4, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00023
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
patent null · Nov 4, 2024
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
· IPR2024-00801
Helena Laboratories Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging numerous claims of Sebia's patent (No. 7887686) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that combining known techniques, such as using zwitterionic buffers with flow inhibitors in Capillary Electrophoresis, is predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
patent denied · Nov 4, 2024
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00023
The PTAB denied institution of Inari Agriculture's PGR against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success, specifically failing to adequately address the unique genotype (PH4CYJ) central to the patent.
patent denied · Nov 4, 2024
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
· IPR2024-00801
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
patent instituted · Nov 4, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00795
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
patent Final Written Decision · Nov 4, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00795
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
patent null · Nov 1, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-00459
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
patent instituted · Nov 1, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-00459
Geneoscopy, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Exact Sciences Corporation's patent (11634781). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, specifically regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent final · Nov 1, 2024
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
· IPR2024-00459
The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00068
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
The USPTO Director denied CrowdStrike's request for a review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00070, leaving the institution of GoSecure's patent 9,954,872 B2 in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
CrowdStrike filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute two parallel IPRs against GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing proper claim constructions for “association” and “computer system.” The petitioner argues the Board’s reasoning aligns with precedent and that the prior‑art reference Capalik renders the claims obvious.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00087
Charter Communications and Plume Design have filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’108 patent, asserting anticipation by Chow‑669 and obviousness over Werner‑Wiley. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
· IPR2025-00127
Court decision.
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
CrowdStrike successfully secured institution of IPR against GoSecure's patent 9,954,872. The Board adopted a broad construction for the key term 'association,' reinforcing the likelihood of unpatentability.
patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
CrowdStrike initiated an IPR against GoSecure's '872 patent, focusing on obviousness (103) in the field of Intrusion Detection Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1 regarding Claim 1 over Capalik, advancing the case toward trial.
patent denied · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00068
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the correct claim construction was already established in a related proceeding.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00068
The Director granted review of the institution decision in a dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure, vacating the initial orders. The case is remanded for the Board to determine which claim construction (broader or narrower) should be used before deciding on trial.
patent denied · Oct 31, 2024
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00066
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
patent denied · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00067
The PTAB denied CrowdStrike's IPR against GoSecure's patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the grounds of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the petitioner's argument that prior art taught fingerprint generation within a virtual machine monitor.
patent instituted · Oct 30, 2024
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00102
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
patent · Oct 30, 2024
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00102
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.
