US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 332 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 14, 2024
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-00694
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
patent denied · Mar 13, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00614
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00650
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00649
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00647
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
patent null · Mar 13, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00614
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00650
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11634491) in a PTAB Institution Decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for multiple claims under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00649
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00647
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against The Johns Hopkins University regarding claims related to anti-PD-1 antibody treatment for MSI colorectal cancer. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success under both 102 and 103 grounds across all 36 claims at issue.
patent Final Written Decision · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00650
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
patent final · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00649
The PTAB found that the patent claims were unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed invention by teaching all elements, leading to a final decision against the patent owner.
patent final · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00648
The PTAB found all 30 challenged claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed methods for treating non-colorectal MSI-H cancers.
patent final · Mar 13, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
· IPR2024-00647
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
HighLevel filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ website‑navigation patent, arguing the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative of prior art considered during prosecution.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00234
HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00234
HighLevel, Inc. challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying a new §101‑based rule retroactively. The petitioner seeks Director Review to pause the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s appeal.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00234
ClickFunnels (Etison LLC) submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny HighLevel’s request for a review, citing the Hulu decision and prior district‑court invalidity of the claims. The brief argues that instituting another IPR would be inefficient and that the petitioner’s reliance on the Ford case is misplaced.
patent instituted · Mar 12, 2024
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
· IPR2025-00172
Apple filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR 2025‑00172. The response argues that DH International waived any discretionary denial arguments by not filing the brief allowed under the Interim Processes memo and that the Board’s practice of permitting affidavit cures is proper.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
· IPR2025-00172
DH International seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Apple’s ‘294 patent, arguing discretionary denial based on settled expectations and a defective translation of the Suga reference that should not count as prior art.
patent · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
ClickFunnels (Etison LLC) opposes HighLevel’s request for a Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, citing the Hulu precedent and the fact that the claims have already been invalidated in district court. The response stresses efficiency and the Board’s discretion to deny institution.
patent denied · Mar 12, 2024
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
The PTAB denied HighLevel's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering patents owned by ClickFunnels. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
