US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 108 of 291 · 8,722 total
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed an IPR petition challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s U.S. Pat. 9,856,320, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior‑art clinical‑trial protocols and dosing disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that there is no ground for discretionary denial.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑3 of Viking Arm’s ’473 patent covering a handheld jacking tool. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over the German Gruber publication combined with the earlier Braselmann patent.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s 10,174,113 melanoma immunotherapy patent, arguing the claims are obvious over public clinical‑trial data and lack written‑description support for the 480 mg dose.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix seeks IPR of SitePro’s 11,726,504 patent covering remote fluid‑handling control, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over Cardamone, Kahn, and SCADA references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s 9,898,014 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, asserting that Kahn and Gutierrez patents anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s ‘403 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
SmartSky Networks, LLC v.Gogo Business Aviation LLC et al.
SmartSky Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Gogo’s ‘600 ATG communication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Kolon’s 9,789,731 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, arguing that all seven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SitePro's remote fluid‑handling patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Kahn and Gutierrez patents and highlighting discretionary factors favoring institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of SitePro’s ‘680 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro's 8,649,909 patent covering remote control of oil‑field fluid‑handling devices. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah—to argue anticipation or obviousness of all challenged claims. Discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s fluid‑handling control patent, asserting that three prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims and that discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of TankLogix's IPR against SitePro, Inc. regarding claims related to remote control of fluid-handling devices in oil and gas facilities. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Cardamone and Kahn.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix's IPR petition against SitePro's patent (11,294,403 B2) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art reference Kahn did not disclose the necessary 'remote control' capabilities for fluid-handling devices, defeating both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR for TankLogix against SitePro regarding remote fluid control systems. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, specifically rejecting attempts to equate 'process data' with the claimed 'target value.'
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix, LLC's IPR petition against SitePro, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence to support anticipation or obviousness challenges. The Board determined that TankLogix failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the record regarding claims related to fluid handling and industrial control systems.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon's 10,196,765 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, asserting that all six claims are obvious over prior art such as Nakayasu and Fritsch.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv seeks IPR cancellation of Valtrus’s ’277 data‑center cooling patent, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated by Nakanishi and Bishop and obvious over their combination.
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.