US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 210 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent null · Oct 4, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00772
Texas Instruments challenges the validity of a patent covering CMOS device fabrication methods on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition asserts that the claimed graded dopant structures are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations, including Kawagoe and Wieczorek.
patent null · Oct 4, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00771
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 regarding CMOS fabrication/doping profiles. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on numerous prior art references including Onoda and Payne. This challenges the patent's validity in semiconductor device technology.
patent instituted · Oct 4, 2024
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
· IPR2024-00703
BTL Industries successfully petitioned to challenge InMode Ltd.'s patent on urogenital tissue tightening methods. The PTAB found compelling merits in the petition, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
patent · Oct 4, 2024
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00772
The Director granted review in multiple IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacating the FWDs. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on privity issues across related proceedings.
patent instituted · Oct 4, 2024
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
· IPR2024-00703
BTL Industries successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against InMode Ltd.'s medical device patent (8961511). The Board adopted a specialized skill level for the POSA and preliminarily constructed key terms related to RF energy application in gynecological tissue.
patent final · Oct 4, 2024
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
· IPR2024-00703
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all 58 claims of the patent owner's application. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references (Edwards, Mosher, Ingle, Ollivier).
patent · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
patent · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Netlist’s ’608 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board missed critical explanations of how the Osanai reference satisfies the claimed data‑path and delay‑circuit limitations.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
patent · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
patent instituted · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
patent · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Netlist’s memory‑interface patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied General Plastic discretionary denial factors to a me‑too petition.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Netlist's patent. The original institution denial therefore stands.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron’s petition to invalidate Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied by the PTAB because the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the five challenged claims.
patent null · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
patent denied · Oct 1, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2024-00370
The PTAB denied Micron's petition to join the Samsung IPR, ruling that the challenges were substantively identical to existing filings. The Board applied General Plastic factors, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing and denying institution based on prior filing history and potential road-mapping concerns.
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01506
Tecan Genomics objected to the evidentiary exhibits submitted by Integrated DNA Technologies in the IPR proceeding, citing multiple Federal Rules of Evidence violations and lack of relevance as prior art.
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01502
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to a Director Review request, defending the institution of its IPR against Tecan’s challenges and arguing that the Board acted properly. The petition emphasizes the legitimacy of expert testimony and rejects the patent owner’s procedural objections.
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01502
Tecan Group AG files a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies. The patent owner alleges procedural abuse, unsupported expert testimony, and misinterpretation of claim scope. The request highlights parallel litigation and discretionary denial issues.
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01498
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its aluminum‑free deodorant patent are obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted the hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a procedural defect regarding real‑party identification.
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01491
HydraFacial LLC opposes Eunsung Global Corp.’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under Fintiv factors and that the petitioner’s new arguments are untimely. The Patent Owner urges the Director to deny the request.
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01491
Eunsung Global Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial’s hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factors and the need for efficient resolution of multiple lawsuits.
