US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 291 · 8,722 total
Wealth, Inc. v.--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Bunker Hill’s ’508 hybrid‑drive patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on a technical expert declaration and argues no secondary considerations exist.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Golden Eye's 9,271,243 patent covering WLAN transmit‑power adjustment. The challenger relies on prior‑art references Hills, Wang and Calhoun to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.GOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.
Pinterest, Inc. v.--
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.
Okta, Inc., et al. v.--
Okta has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all sixteen claims of Thales’s ’103 patent covering security policies for eID wallets on mobile devices. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Makhotin, Coulomb, Jones and others.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of AccuSearch’s ’959 patent covering annotated search‑result displays, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
LG Display has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,293,691 covering an OLED display device. The petition asserts indefiniteness, lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑22 of SoftView’s ’729 patent, alleging they are obvious over prior‑art handheld browsers (Zaurus, Pad++) and SVG standards, with claim 21 also relying on SVF. The petition invokes estoppel and issue preclusion based on earlier PTAB findings for related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑35 of SoftView’s ’154 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, SVG and SVF prior art and arguing that the claims are patentably indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑37 of SoftView’s ’628 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and arguing the claims are indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 115 claims of SoftView’s ’889 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and are indistinct from previously cancelled claims in related patents.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,031,677, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board is asked to end the review under statutory authority.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over its Lapiplasty bunion correction system. The agreement resolves multiple infringement and unfair competition claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus settled their IPR dispute before the trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
A confidential settlement agreement was filed, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon has filed a petition to invalidate Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on grounds of obviousness and lack of written description for 4G LTE implementations.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Treace Medical’s bunion‑correction patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of InterDigital’s ’606 video‑encoding patent, asserting obviousness over Sekiguchi, VCEG‑AJ21, Xiong and H.264. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analysis linking each limitation to the prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 10,512,385 dishwasher patent, asserting that claims 13‑21 are obvious over Bosch, Ochoa, and Schessl references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Whirlpool’s 12,543,922 dishwasher rack patent on obviousness and indefiniteness grounds, relying on multiple prior‑art references.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries filed a PGR petition for U.S. Patent 12,359,506, providing a corrected exhibit list that includes prior patents and a related Federal Circuit case.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 13 claims of Little Giant Ladder Systems' ‘506 patent covering articulated ladder hinges. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness, and argues that the examiner erred in granting the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 2025 dishwasher patent (US 12,232,681), seeking to invalidate claims 14‑16 and 19 as obvious over prior‑art references Carr, Mailander, and Ochoa.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Zugara’s AR video‑chat patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Rosenthal and Vesely publications. The petition lists 29 claims and relies on 35 U.S.C. §103.
X Corp. v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of the ’744 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Palmon, Walther, and Lu. The petition invokes §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of review.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.