US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 100 of 188 · 5,620 total
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of a PGR covering 78 claims of its wellhead patent. The owner argues the proceeding is inefficient, cites misapplied prior‑art analysis, and alleges the Board ignored § 325(d) discretionary denial grounds.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute review of its wellhead patent. The petitioner contends there was no abuse of discretion and that the Board correctly applied statutory standards, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review Request.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Intelligent Wellhead Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision on its wellhead patent, keeping the institution in place.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment has requested a Director Review of a PGR challenge to its wellhead patent, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 78 claims of Downing's hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the claims are abstract, lack written description, contain new matter, and are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar AG petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SportsCastr's U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering real‑time sports video and data streaming, arguing the claims are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑9 and argues against discretionary denial.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron submits an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution decision for its memory‑chip etching patent, arguing the Board properly evaluated the Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga references. The Patent Owner's objections are portrayed as mischaracterizations of the prior art.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
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.