US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 102 of 188 · 5,620 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Exact Sciences Corporation's patent (11634781). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, specifically regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied CrowdStrike's request for a review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00070, leaving the institution of GoSecure's patent 9,954,872 B2 in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute two parallel IPRs against GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing proper claim constructions for “association” and “computer system.” The petitioner argues the Board’s reasoning aligns with precedent and that the prior‑art reference Capalik renders the claims obvious.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications and Plume Design have filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’108 patent, asserting anticipation by Chow‑669 and obviousness over Werner‑Wiley. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Court decision.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike successfully secured institution of IPR against GoSecure's patent 9,954,872. The Board adopted a broad construction for the key term 'association,' reinforcing the likelihood of unpatentability.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike initiated an IPR against GoSecure's '872 patent, focusing on obviousness (103) in the field of Intrusion Detection Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1 regarding Claim 1 over Capalik, advancing the case toward trial.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the correct claim construction was already established in a related proceeding.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The Director granted review of the institution decision in a dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure, vacating the initial orders. The case is remanded for the Board to determine which claim construction (broader or narrower) should be used before deciding on trial.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied CrowdStrike's IPR against GoSecure's patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the grounds of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the petitioner's argument that prior art taught fingerprint generation within a virtual machine monitor.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s adjustable child‑carrier patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing indefiniteness of a key claim term.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against The Ergo Baby Carrier's patent on adjustable baby carriers. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of persuasion, specifically regarding the public accessibility of key prior art and demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against 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.