US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 110 of 291 · 8,722 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay all court deadlines after reaching a settlement in principle. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and submit dismissal papers.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response to Amazon's IPR, arguing the petition lacks merit and that a pending settlement makes the review unnecessary, seeking discretionary denial.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the claims patent‑eligible and adequately supported. No claims were found unpatentable.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology's request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the petitioner’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness unpersuasive.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,060,590 covering thousands of engineered PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Tire Stickers’ ’027 patent covering display assemblies for vulcanized rubber articles, asserting that all 18 challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art patches and commercial brochures.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor’s TPMS patent, arguing that 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Optimum Imaging’s 8,451,339 camera‑aberration patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition challenging Progenics' patent on AI‑driven medical risk mapping, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also cites Fintiv factors to support institution.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND‑flash patent, arguing obviousness over the Gavens system and related prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '590 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB found the claims were overly broad regarding polypeptide scope, requiring undue experimentation for a skilled artisan.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies' patent, ruling that Revvo Technologies failed to adequately explain its differing claim construction positions between the PTAB and district court litigation.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, allowing claims to be challenged on obviousness grounds after a remand. The Board ruled that Petitioner provided sufficient justification for differing claim construction positions.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a patent dispute involving Revvo and Cerebrum, remanding the case for further proceedings after clarifying that petitioners must explain inconsistent claim construction positions across forums.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Revvo Technologies against Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, challenging 26 claims related to sensor assemblies. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Tire Stickers LLC's patent (11,124,027 B2) regarding display assemblies for tires. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple grounds of obviousness over several prior art references.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR in a dispute involving Tire Stickers LLC and Revvo Technologies, citing Petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal venues.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied MIM Software's request to institute IPR against Progenics Pharmaceuticals regarding a medical image analysis patent. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to properly construe the key term 'risk map,' proposing multiple ambiguous definitions without adequate justification.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung Electronics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its life‑signs detector patent. The petition alleges examiner error, improper reliance on settled expectations, and due‑process violations. A stay of the parallel district‑court case is also argued.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
OtterBox and SafeTray Products settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,113,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the proceeding was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.
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.