US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 101 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that it believes misinterpreted the means‑plus‑function claim language in NL Giken’s video‑processing patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board’s construction flip‑flopping and procedural errors warrant vacatur under §314(a).
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 10‑21 of U.S. Patent 9,745,123, arguing they are obvious over earlier seed‑handling manuals and patents. The petition argues that discretionary‑denial factors do not support a denial and requests institution.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 smart‑card patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art smart‑card references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 16‑23 of Unverferth’s seed‑carrier patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art manuals and patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial factors weigh against a denial, urging the Board to institute the review.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of the ‘022 patent covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of DH International’s ’294 patent covering multimode cellular phone data switching, arguing that Mooney and Lee disclose the same features and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge DH International Ltd.'s patentability, leading the Board to institute IPR proceedings on all 20 claims. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'activation cue' favorable to Google and found that the Petitioner met the standard for institution based on obviousness grounds over prior art references Mooney and Lee.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against DH International Ltd.'s payment card patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding the obviousness claims over Ong and Hoff.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Curio Bioscience against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over Cantor or anticipated by Frisen. The Board upheld the Patent Owner's position regarding spatial analysis in tissue samples.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 20 claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable over prior art references Mooney and Lee. The Board successfully construed key terms like 'activation cue' functionally, agreeing that a quality Bluetooth signal satisfies this requirement.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and prior Board guidance to support termination.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their PTAB inter partes review disputes, leading to termination of four IPRs covering Dyson vacuum technology patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed an Initial Petition challenging 15 claims of Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent related to hand vacuum cleaner configuration. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious, relying on two distinct combinations of prior art references.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s vacuum cleaner patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that Dyson adequately demonstrated a motivation to combine prior art references for several claimed features, leading to institution on 13 claims.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for a plant‑utility patent, arguing the Board created an improper bright‑line rule that shields patents based on secret parent lines. The petition cites statutory and policy grounds, seeking Director review.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for a Director Review of institution decisions in four PGR cases involving Pioneer Hi-Bred’s seed patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging numerous claims of Sebia's patent (No. 7887686) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that combining known techniques, such as using zwitterionic buffers with flow inhibitors in Capillary Electrophoresis, is predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Inari Agriculture's PGR against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success, specifically failing to adequately address the unique genotype (PH4CYJ) central to the patent.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
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.