US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 110 of 188 · 5,620 total
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 were non-obvious, leading to the institution of trial on all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on combinations of Bowen and Sunai prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody challenged Hyperice's patent on percussive massagers based on indefiniteness and obviousness, but the PTAB upheld the claims. The Board found that key terms like 'substantially cylindrical' were supported by functional limitations in the specification.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2012 data‑visualization patent, arguing the case would duplicate district‑court litigation and waste Board resources.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for Director Review of the institution decision that denied an IPR on patent 9,712,595. The brief argues the dissent does not create a reasonable likelihood of success and that the Board’s findings on the prior art were correct.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied Decent Espresso International Ltd.'s IPR challenge against DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC's infused beverage brewing assembly patent. The Board rejected the petitioner's claim construction of 'resulting solvent valve,' upholding the single-valve interpretation required by the patent owner.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully secured institution in an IPR against Wrinkl, Inc., challenging 30 claims based on anticipation by the 'Cohen' prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under 35 U.S.C. § 102, moving the case toward trial.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding combining prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software successfully instituted an IPR against iCharts LLC regarding patent 8271892 for data visualization technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on the preliminary record, advancing the challenge to trial.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘546 NAND‑flash patent, asserting abstract‑idea, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness grounds. The petition relies on extensive expert declaration and prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dusija and Sutardja.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Vervain’s ‘612 NAND flash memory patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The petition relies on extensive prior‑art patents and technical literature covering hybrid SLC‑MLC flash systems.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
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.