US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 107 of 291 · 8,722 total
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and ASSIA have settled their dispute over a DSL‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority to end the proceeding before any merits are decided and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
Court decision.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit disclosure to federal agencies only.
RingConn, LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 defects. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
SIG Sauer, Inc. v.Lone Star Future Weapons, Inc. et al.
SIG Sauer has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,919,238, asserting that the weapon‑system claims are anticipated or obvious over Holek, Rossier, and Chinn. The petition seeks institution of the IPR to cancel all 17 challenged claims.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia petition the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of a DSL adaptive FEC patent, arguing obviousness over Cooper, Klayman and Li references and urging institution despite discretionary challenges.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of NL Giken’s 8,677,391 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems (Ray, Nolan, Cansler) under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard seeks an IPR of Medline’s ’347 patent covering urinary catheter trays, challenging claims 1‑8, 10‑11, 13‑20 as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary factors do not favor denial and requests institution.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Medline’s 11,661,220 catheter‑kit patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard seeks PTAB institution of an IPR to cancel Medline’s 11,661,219 catheter‑kit patent, arguing that every claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent (11769910). The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art references, including Zeng and Zhou. This ruling advances a critical battery technology dispute into trial.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director denied institution of IPR for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., citing the petition's unfocused nature and inefficient use of Office resources.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed Director Review requests in IPR2025-00601 and -00602, and the PTAB has instructed Bristol‑Myers Squibb to respond within five business days without new evidence.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol‑Myers Squibb successfully defended its PD‑1 antibody patent after the PTAB denied Amgen’s request for Director Review, finding no credible grounds to revisit the discretionary denial.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen seeks Director review of a denied institution for IPR2025‑00602, arguing that Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® flat‑dose patent is obvious and was improperly shielded by a discretionary denial based on settled expectations.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The USPTO Director denied Amgen’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602, leaving the institution denials in place.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,255 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement. Institution of the petition is pending.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
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.