US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 212 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-01419
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent · Sep 30, 2024
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2024-01501
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of CamelBak’s 9,782,028 drink‑container patent, alleging obviousness over Kiyota, Ribarits and Choi references and arguing that the term “user release mechanism” is means‑plus‑function.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01506
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01504
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Iafrate and Kivioja for key NGS claims. The Board also provided definitive claim constructions for 'indexing site' and 'identifier site.'
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01502
Integrated DNA Technologies challenged Tecan Genomics's NGS patent (9546399) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Iafrate and Kivioja. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iafrate and Kivioja.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2024-01501
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2024-01500
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. faced denial in an IPR proceeding against Collision Communications, Inc., regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found no reasonable likelihood that Samsung could overcome the obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01498
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
· IPR2024-01497
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01491
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
· IPR2024-01476
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Haptic, Inc.'s patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel civil litigation and concerns over system efficiency.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
· IPR2024-01475
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
patent denied · Sep 30, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
patent instituted · Sep 30, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-01419
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute trial against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent claims related to genomic sequencing and analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1, allowing the IPR to proceed despite extensive prior art challenges under Sections 102 and 103.
patent final · Sep 30, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01504
The PTAB found multiple claims unpatentable under both § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references—specifically Iafrate, Kivioja, and Bielas—in the context of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. Claim construction was finalized, defining key terms like 'identifier site' and 'indexing site'.
patent final · Sep 30, 2024
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01498
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
patent final · Sep 30, 2024
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
· IPR2024-01419
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
patent denied · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital’s challenge to patent 10,680,167 owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
Western Digital files an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s Director Review request, asserting the request lacks merit and that the PTAB’s institution decisions should stand.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
Western Digital requests the PTAB Director to vacate institution of an IPR on a hard‑disk‑drive MTJ patent, arguing that the case should be resolved in the pending district‑court litigation.
patent · Sep 27, 2024
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Director Review requests were issued for IPR2024-01493 and IPR2024-01494, limiting petitioner responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
