US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 102 of 291 · 8,722 total
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Arkose Labs' CAPTCHA‑related patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as the Lim patent and its combinations with Lillibridge and Guthrie.
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome has filed a petition to review Arkose Labs’ ‘robot proof website’ patent (U.S. 9,148,427), seeking to invalidate the claims through inter partes review.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed a petition to invalidate Progenics' U.S. Patent 11,894,141, asserting that its claims on prostate‑cancer imaging are obvious over prior‑art references such as Maier, Huang and Armor. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Arkose Labs' robot‑proof website patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over prior art such as Lim, Guthrie, and Lillibridge. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds exist and seeks cancellation of the claims.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals because the petition failed to provide adequate claim construction rationale. The Board found that Petitioner’s proposed constructions for 'risk indices' were too ambiguous and insufficiently supported by prior art.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to review claims in Progenics' medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide a clear, single claim construction for key terms like 'risk map.'
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review on all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ’291 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. All nine claims are now under review.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged U.S. Patent 8,275,827, leading the PTAB to find all 14 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by the Carter reference and obviousness over Carter and Pitzel.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01562) filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical’s patent 11,844,921 after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
The PTAB denied Innoscience's petition to institute IPR against Infineon's 9,899,481 B2 patent covering compound semiconductor power components, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 17 challenged claims.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752, filing joint motions that led the PTAB to terminate the IPRs. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,839,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites the early stage of the proceeding and lack of opposition as grounds for termination.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR over patent 7,949,752. The Board is asked to grant the motion based on efficiency and the lack of opposition.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The petition relied on anticipation and obviousness over Garrison and other references, but lacked sufficient particularity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care proved all nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding the term “filament” must be flexible and that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s GaN power transistor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of Nega, Roberts, Otremba and Liu references. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR concerning patent 8,275,827 before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under Board rules.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,275,827. They jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 hemostasis valve patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller 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.