US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 217 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
· IPR2024-00791
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on a 3‑D memory patent was denied. The Board’s findings that the petitioner’s proposed modifications were inoperable and lacked motivation were upheld.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 5, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00840
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
patent · Mar 5, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
· IPR2024-00791
Micron Technology petitions the PTAB Director to review a final written decision that upheld Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND flash patent claims. Micron contends the Board erred on obviousness grounds by demanding bodily incorporation, ignoring reply‑stage evidence, and misapplying anticipation standards. The request seeks reversal or vacatur of the decision.
patent · Mar 5, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00853
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 5, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00853
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
· IPR2024-00791
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00791 (and the related IPR2024-00911). The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
patent null · Mar 5, 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
· IPR2024-00827
Uber Technologies filed a Petition challenging the validity of Enovsys's Proximity Alert Patent (6756918) based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that existing prior art, including Layson references and Taylor/Fast teachings, renders the claimed location tracking methods unpatentable. This challenges a key patent in the victim-offender monitoring space.
patent instituted · Mar 5, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00893
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR concerning network reconfiguration protocols, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103). The patent relates to methods for rapid link failure recovery in Switching/Routing Protocols (STP).
patent instituted · Mar 5, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00853
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom for patent infringement related to remote patient monitoring and glucose technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, specifically finding that prior art combinations rendered key claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Mar 5, 2024
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00840
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DexCom's CGM patent (9119528) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Brauker. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims, leading to institution.
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
· IPR2024-00827
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to location tracking and wireless systems. The Board found insufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over the cited prior art, particularly regarding specific limitations like 'tracking period' or 'tracking request.'
patent denied · Mar 5, 2024
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
· IPR2024-00825
Uber Technologies' IPR challenge against Envosys' location tracking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding the scope of geographic notification limitations.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 5, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00893
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims of the '986 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the combination of prior art references, including Gai and an IEEE publication, taught the full scope of the claimed network failure recovery method.
patent null · Mar 4, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00766
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
patent null · Mar 4, 2024
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00669
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
patent denied · Mar 4, 2024
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00766
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
patent instituted · Mar 4, 2024
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00669
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 4, 2024
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00669
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that multiple claims of the '077 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine existing RF ablation and nasal treatment technologies.
patent instituted · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
patent denied · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00468
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
patent · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
patent null · Mar 2, 2024
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
· IPR2024-00469
Monolithic Power Systems challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 regarding semiconductor device claims (7 and 8) in an IPR proceeding. The Petitioner argues that the claimed graded dopant profiles and electric drift fields are obvious over prior art references like Onoda and Kawagoe. The Board has instituted the case for trial, finding the evidence compelling enough to proceed with the challenge.
patent · Mar 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00119
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent · Mar 1, 2024
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.
