US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 291 · 8,722 total
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research announced a partial settlement with Apple, licensing its patents and dropping all Apple‑related claims in the Texas district court case against Amazon defendants.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Headwater’s ’192 MMS server patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate key claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning robot patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier Chinese and U.S. robotic cleaning disclosures. The petition targets claims 1‑8, 11‑14, and 19 and seeks an IPR institution.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' patent for an autonomous pool‑cleaning robot, asserting that the invention is anticipated by a Chinese robot patent and obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all five claims.
Wybotics Inc. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2007 Chinese filing and obvious over multiple U.S. robot‑cleaner references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 1‑3.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s ’894 patent covering analytical ultracentrifugation methods for AAV vectors. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of long‑standing literature (de la Maza) and the Le Bec patent, combined with Sommer and Cole. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 10‑30.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑9 and 15‑19 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’890 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Takashi, Sato, and Ho references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed TOSA features were known in the industry prior to filing.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Genzyme’s ’326 patent on AAV analytical ultracentrifugation, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious in view of earlier publications by Le Bec and de la Maza, supported by Cole and Sommer.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR against HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’s U.S. Patent 10,321,320 covering a wireless network buffered messaging system. The petition asserts that all 18 claims are obvious over the 3GPP MMS standard and related prior art. The request seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Ascendis Pharma A/S et al. v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Ascendis Pharma has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of BioMarin’s U.S. Patent 12,331,106 covering CNP‑variant treatments for achondroplasia. The petition alleges obviousness, anticipation, lack of enablement, and an improper dependent claim. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s multi‑speaker audio patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing Bluetooth speaker technologies. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker's ’590 patent covering smart‑meter appliances. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references for all 62 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
A notice of decisions on institution was issued, denying several IPRs and granting others, while the status of Amazon's IPR against Smart Speaker remains pending.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
A USPTO notice details institution decisions for several IPRs, leaving the status of Amazon’s challenge to Smart Speaker’s patent unresolved.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
The document lists PTAB institution decisions for multiple IPRs, but does not provide a decision for IPR2026-00146.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’710 patent covering server‑based voice control of smart‑home devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’706 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider obviousness, while the patent owner maintains the invention’s novelty.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker's ’174 smart‑home patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider key prior art and that the claims recite routine home‑automation functions.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 25 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’599 patent covering wireless audio eyeglasses, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and lack a valid priority date.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging MYW Semitech’s 11,538,763 chip‑package patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the patent before the PTAB.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of MYW Semitech’s chip‑package patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references covering interposer and bump technologies.
Bird Buddy, Inc. v.Perkins, Frederick
Bird Buddy files an IPR petition challenging six claims of its ‘242 smart bird‑feeder patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier bird‑feeder and electronics references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,107,768, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering chip‑package technology.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 47 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’104 patent covering hands‑free audio messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
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.