US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 198 of 364 · 8,722 total
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 null · Nov 4, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00795
Micron Technology filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,501,822, challenging its validity based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner successfully established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and met all procedural requirements for institution.
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 · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
GoSecure seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of two parallel IPRs filed by CrowdStrike, arguing procedural abuse, improper claim construction, and lack of exceptional circumstances.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
CrowdStrike filed a response urging the PTAB to deny GoSecure’s second request for Director review, arguing that all discretionary denial arguments were previously waived. The Board had already rejected those arguments, limiting the dispute to claim construction of “association.”
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of CrowdStrike’s IPR against patent 9,954,872, alleging the Board ignored binding precedent and misapplied claim construction. The request highlights inefficiencies, settled expectations, and unfair dealings.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00068
CrowdStrike defends two PTAB petitions challenging GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing differing constructions of the term “association” and supporting claim constructions with the Capalik prior art. The response rebuts GoSecure’s arguments against the Board’s institution of parallel petitions and the definition of “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
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00068
GoSecure has submitted a Director Review request for IPR2025-00068, prompting CrowdStrike to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
· IPR2025-00127
Sterlite Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AFL Telecommunications' optical‑fiber cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,954,872 patent on the basis that its claims are obvious over a series of prior‑art references covering malware activity monitoring and intrusion detection.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00068
CrowdStrike seeks IPR of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent 9,954,872 covering methods for detecting unauthorized computer activities. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Capalik, King, Pike, and Farley, and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00066
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,598,258, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution under the Fintiv factors and argues that the claims lack patentability. The outcome is pending.
patent · Oct 31, 2024
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00069
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of GoSecure’s ’697 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on five prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute review and notes that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
