US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 143 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent final · Sep 16, 2024
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01451
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 16, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01447
The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 16, 2024
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01438
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
patent final · Sep 16, 2024
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01436
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
patent · Sep 13, 2024
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
· IPR2024-01416
R‑Pac International seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Adasa’s RFID tag patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused discretion by refusing a preliminary reply and misapplying prior‑art combinations.
patent instituted · Sep 13, 2024
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2024-01399
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
patent · Sep 13, 2024
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
· IPR2024-01416
Court decision.
patent denied · Sep 13, 2024
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
· IPR2024-01416
Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.
patent · Sep 13, 2024
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
· IPR2024-01416
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Sep 13, 2024
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
· IPR2024-01416
r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.
patent denied · Sep 13, 2024
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
· IPR2024-01435
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
patent denied · Sep 13, 2024
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
· IPR2024-01416
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
patent final · Sep 13, 2024
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2024-01399
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 13, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01398
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00257
Petitioner seeks to sustain PTAB institution of an IPR over Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and its broad stipulation blocks discretionary denial.
patent denied · Sep 12, 2024
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00260
The USPTO Director denied Feit Electric’s request for review of the Board’s order to deny its motion to terminate IPR2025-00260, finding the request improper under the regulations.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00257
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on a stipulation. The petition highlights the actual trial date, discovery investment, and identical parties as reasons for discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Sep 12, 2024
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00260
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Feit Electric’s 8604678 LED patent, covering claims 1 and 11‑14, and ordered consolidation with a related IPR. Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00260
Court decision.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00257
Court decision.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00257
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printer heated‑bed patent, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over a combination of existing 3D‑printing references.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00260
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1 and 11‑14 of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing they are obvious over several LED‑related publications. The petition seeks institution of inter‑partes review.
patent · Sep 12, 2024
ELONG INTERNATIONAL USA INC. et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00258
Elong International and Xiamen Longstar have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing the claims are obvious over several LED‑lighting references. The petition cites Basin‑2007, Krummacher, Hussell and others as prior art.
patent instituted · Sep 12, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00257
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
