US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 168 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
· IPR2024-00185
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
Senko Advanced Components argues that US Conec’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not qualify under §102 or disclose the required “slidably received” groove features of claim 1. The patent owner seeks denial of the petition.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00039
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to invoke discretionary denial provisions.
patent terminated or settled
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2024-00109
Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec and Senko have settled their IPR over patent 11,307,369 and jointly request the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
patent
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00122
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. filed an IPR against Senko Advanced Components' patent 11061190; the patent owner submitted a preliminary response.
patent
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
· PGR2024-00036
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
patent
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00037
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00030
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
patent
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
· PGR2024-00032
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
patent
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
· PGR2024-00028
Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
patent
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00019
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
patent
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00025
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging 20 claims of Pioneer’s corn‑variety patent, arguing obviousness, lack of utility, and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution of the review and raises novel legal questions about plant‑utility claim drafting.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· PGR2025-00016
Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent
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
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00485
Monarch defends its IPv6 transition patent against Juniper’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that key references are not prior art.
patent
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
· PGR2025-00029
AdvanCell has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sciencons’ 603 patent covering a radioisotope generator for targeted alpha‑therapy, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement. The petition seeks cancellation of all 20 claims.
patent
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
· IPR2024-00489
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited factual dispute about the Oborne prior art and that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
patent
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00485
Monarch’s preliminary response opposes Juniper’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,451,844, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that Li‑2 is not prior art. The owner seeks denial of institution.
patent
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
· PGR2024-00020
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
patent
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
· IPR2024-00485
Juniper’s IPR challenge to Monarch’s IPv4/IPv6 inter‑domain routing patent is countered with a sur‑reply asserting that the cited prior art is either not publicly available or teaches different solutions, and that new arguments are procedurally improper.
