US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 291 · 8,722 total
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz seeks to invalidate all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,352,020, alleging they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. v.BRIGHTEX BIO-PHOTONICS, LLC
L'Oreal seeks IPR on Brightex’s 2017 cosmetic‑recommendation patent, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over Bandic, Rubinstenn103 and Rubinstenn300 references.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR of Align’s 11,369,456 patent covering clear‑aligner treatment‑plan software. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute review and invalidate claims 1‑19.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology's '879 patent in a PTAB decision focused on obviousness. The Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that combining prior art references would render the claims obvious, upholding the validity of the challenged technology in orthodontics.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology regarding dental treatment planning technology. The PTAB ruled that the claimed obviousness over prior art was not demonstrated, upholding the validity of the patent claims.
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art standards and publications.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc. et al.
NJOY has filed an IPR petition challenging JUUL’s U.S. Pat. 12,156,533 covering nicotine‑salt e‑cigarette formulations. The petition argues anticipation under §102 and obviousness under §103 based on the Sebastian and Lechuga‑Ballesteros references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.
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.