US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 106 of 291 · 8,722 total
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Court decision.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
AfterWords, Inc. filed a preliminary response opposing GetTattle’s IPR petition, contending that the cited prior art does not disclose the patented Survey Module and therefore the petition should be denied.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Shanghai Miracogen’s antibody‑drug conjugate patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art ADC disclosures. The petition seeks institution of the review.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. successfully argued obviousness over Wei, Liu, and Leanna in an IPR proceeding against Shanghai Miracogen Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims, leading to the institution of the case for trial.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against AfterWords, Inc.'s patent (10430811) based on anticipation grounds (§ 102). The Board found sufficient support in prior art references Douglas and Ganesh for all challenged claims, leading to the institution of the case.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR covering a Mobile Data Technologies patent on mobile‑data technology. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and ignored clear examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies enjoys strong settled expectations for its ’801 patent, keeping the denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have settled their IPR dispute over a respiratory‑rate patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00537 and related proceedings, keeping the institution decisions intact.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and invalidate all 20 claims of Worcester Polytechnic’s ‘362 patent covering PPG motion‑artifact detection, citing obviousness over Chon ‘947, Mollerus, and Simon. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate under §314(a) and §325(d).
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 7 and 11 of PayRange’s ’772 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art patents and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’801 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems' IPR petition against PayRange LLC was denied, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 7 and 11 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments combining prior art references (Low, Arora, Freeny, Casey) to establish obviousness.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved with NL Giken to terminate IPR2025-00407 over U.S. Patent 8,677,391 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and notes the institution decision is still pending.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition for inter partes review of Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard's IPR challenge to Medline Industries' patent was terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the Board granting a joint motion to dismiss before instituting the trial.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline Industries jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record for U.S. Patent 11,684,347 covering urinary catheters.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline filed a joint PTAB motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure to federal agencies only.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their inter partes review dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
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.