US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 113 of 188 · 5,620 total
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
Intel Corporation's IPR challenge against InterDigital, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a material error under the Advanced Bionics framework and that arguments were previously presented during prosecution.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The Director denied the Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Klein Tools against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, vacating the prior decision to grant institution. The denial was based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors favoring system efficiency.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing Fintiv factors and the proximity of trial. The Board adopted a construction of 'periodically monitor' meaning 'monitor at regular intervals of time.'
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. seeks reversal of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated claims of its presentation‑dongle patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board improperly discounted a multi‑patent Crestron license and other commercial‑success evidence, misapplying Ancora precedent. A petition for Director Review has been filed.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight Limited have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01423 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination when parties settle.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal portions of its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01439, asserting that the material contains highly confidential licensing and financial information. The Board must decide whether the confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s right to a complete record.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR against a magnetic tunnel junction patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director review to vacate the institution, arguing that piecemeal review of one of nine related patents is inefficient and contrary to AIA policy.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01447. The company contends the request lacks any showing of error or abuse of discretion and should be denied.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink’s challenge to U.S. Patent 11,422,951. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response filed within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the documents from the public patent file.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The IPR concerning patent 10,890,925 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four USPTO patents, leading the Board to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.
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.