US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 109 of 188 · 5,620 total
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
HydraFacial LLC opposes Eunsung Global Corp.’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under Fintiv factors and that the petitioner’s new arguments are untimely. The Patent Owner urges the Director to deny the request.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial’s hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factors and the need for efficient resolution of multiple lawsuits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a reply opposing Mullen Industries’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering Samsung’s smartwatch patent. The petitioner argues that discretionary factors favor institution, citing lack of overlap and strong merits. Samsung seeks denial of the director’s review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Tecan’s DNA‑sequencing patent. The petitioner argues the institution is efficient, the expert testimony is proper, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Board’s institution therefore stands.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving Tecan Genomics. The Board concluded the petitions did not merit overturning the earlier institution rulings.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics filed a comprehensive set of objections to Integrated DNA Technologies’ evidentiary exhibits in IPR2024‑01504, citing multiple FRE rules to block hearsay, irrelevant, and unauthenticated material. The objections were timely filed after the institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its smartwatch patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and would cause waste given an imminent district‑court trial. The petition contends the Board’s factual findings are erroneous and requests denial of institution.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 41 claims of HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition asserts that the examiner never considered the Karasiuk‑Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba teachings and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Haptic’s ‘738 patent covering gesture‑based control of terminal devices. The petition relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, Orr, Li and iFixit.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
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.