US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 113 of 291 · 8,722 total
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 8, 9, 13, and 17‑21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367, which cover a zero‑profile expandable intervertebral spacer. The petition relies on the Palmatier patent as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s 8,554,671 patent covering cashless mobile transactions. The challenger argues that claims 1‑3 and 22 are obvious over the Look, Stallings, and Tumminaro prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’889 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based autonomous‑vehicle control.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01574 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This decision allows the case to proceed to merits review.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly request the Board to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding as to Hisense.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion argues that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public‑policy goals.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia and Hisense have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense. The motion invokes 35 U.S.C. §317 and requests confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense USA have settled their IPR against Nokia Technologies' patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding as to Hisense.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid patent, arguing obviousness over Okano and combinations with Withenshaw and Oringer. The petition also asserts that the claims require steps to be performed in order.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Nokia’s video‑coding patent, arguing obviousness over Karczewicz and the MPEG‑1/H.263 combination.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom's 8,385,913 patent, asserting that the claimed server‑mediated device‑identifier exchange is fully anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent resulted in all nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent on wireless device identifier exchange. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and Kulakowski references and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑based payment patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier wireless transaction systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering a server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices. The petition relies on Perttila and Swartz as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s proximity‑based coupon patent in IPR2020‑00932. The Board held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding them anticipated or obvious over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Insolia references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google won an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, finding all 13 challenged claims of the ’736 patent unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness over prior art Eagle (and Eagle + Mgrdechian).
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑device patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering dynamic device identifier exchange via a central server. The petition argues the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Mgrdechian and Kulakowski references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of a proximity‑beacon patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as Mgrdechian and its combinations with Kaplan, Kulakowski, Eagle, and Behrens.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent on proximity‑based wireless communication, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s ’842 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski as prior art to establish anticipation and obviousness. The decision underscores the vulnerability of proximity‑based transaction patents.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a mobile e‑commerce patent, arguing that the claimed server‑mediated exchange is obvious over existing Bluetooth coupon systems and related e‑commerce implementations.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a proximity‑based loyalty patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Perttila combined with either Insolia or Davis. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests the Board not to deny institution on discretionary grounds.
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.