US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 106 of 188 · 5,620 total
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 using prior art references Ogawa, Choi, and Yook. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'open application state' and 'display.'
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references Yook, Bauer, and Lee. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of multi-screen user interfaces.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Cerence that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465, outlining a five‑page, five‑business‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s denial of institution for IPR2024-01464 covering U.S. Patent 11,393,461. They argue the Board acted ultra vires and misapplied Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation and trial‑date uncertainty. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its voice‑assistant patent, arguing that the Board acted within authority and that petitioners’ due‑process claims were unfounded.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.
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.