US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 105 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs and PGRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and requiring justification for differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Court decision.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,849,337 covering a multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi system. The challenger asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’933 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of three prior‑art references covering multi‑RAT Wi‑Fi systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ Wi‑Fi bandwidth‑aggregation patent, asserting that a combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’976 patent, asserting that the combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has petitioned the PTAB for Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial’s 9,550,052 microdermabrasion patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,856,414. The challenger argues that the patent’s claims are obvious in view of earlier Wi‑Fi technologies disclosed in Chincholi, Riggert, and Choi. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks' 11,818,591 patent covering multi‑transceiver wireless networking devices, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01209 after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Institution was granted in IPR2025-01208 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending Director Review of related cases.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01207 after the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard, but all related proceedings are currently stayed pending Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01206 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. However, all related proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01205, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay pending related Director Reviews.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11849337, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with its challenge, though the trial is currently stayed.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01169), allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial against the challenged patent.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and to terminate the pending IPR on patent 11,261,151.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals challenges Atossa Therapeutics’ endoxifen patent in IPR 2025‑00799. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the case and that the Patent Owner’s new arguments are unsupported. The response seeks denial of the Owner’s request for Director Review.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Court decision.
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.