US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 101 of 291 · 8,722 total
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Court decision.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nutanix patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s ’340 database‑management patent, arguing obviousness over Chikkanayakanahally and Merriman. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s ’345 patent on digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over Wright, Booth, Leyendecker and Jin. The petition requests institution and cancellation of all eleven claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate Smart RF’s U.S. Patent 10,958,296 covering a multi‑band digital predistortion linearizer. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali and request the PTAB to institute the IPR.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Air Esscentials' fragrance‑diffuser patent, asserting that claims 1 and 3‑8 are obvious over prior‑art diffusers (Goubet, Kaiser, Gao‑2). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
Aroma360 seeks to invalidate claims 7‑9 and 11 of Air Esscentials’ 9,527,094 patent on essential‑oil diffusers, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Proxense’s ’989 patent covering smartphone biometric authentication, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
Aroma360 seeks an IPR of Air Esscentials' 10,583,449 patent covering fluid‑dispersion assemblies for fragrance delivery, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and anticipation by a Chinese utility model.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned to challenge claims of Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (10583449) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
AROMA 360, LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR against Air Esscentials, Inc.'s patent (9527094) for obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 7 based on Sevy, leading to trial institution.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a beverage brewing system patent (11957271), finding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the Board's determination that key prior art, Buttiker, was not applicable.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Progenics' prostate‑cancer imaging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and opposes discretionary denial under §314(a).
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.