US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 107 of 188 · 5,620 total
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
T-Mobile USA's IPR challenge against Aspen Networks regarding VoIP network routing claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically concerning how SIP signaling sequences are maintained across network handoffs.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,331,379 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,313,379 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra jointly moved to dismiss their IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
Ewald Dörken AG has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Schaeffler’s wheel‑bearing coating patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,331,379 held by K.Mizra LLC. The core challenge asserts that the claimed DRAM controller features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including LaBerge and Bowater.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the PTAB post‑grant review. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. §327(b) and related regulations.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,781,148 covering yeast metabolic engineering.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica settled their post‑grant review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,781,148. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petition, terminating the proceeding.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology has filed a PGR petition challenging Radici Chimica’s 2023 patent on engineered yeast for terpene production, arguing obviousness over Bailey and Zhang and lack of enablement due to the claim breadth.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review Request asking the USPTO to overturn the Board’s decision to institute IPR2024-00847 against Amazon. The petition argues the Board erred in combining mutually exclusive video‑coding modes and ignored the term “skip coding mode.”
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00891 covering U.S. Patent No. 11,020,031. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits. The parties also seek termination of related IPRs and a district‑court case.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks a Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent covering a novel skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board’s obviousness findings are unsupported and misinterpret the patent’s terminology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
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.