US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 114 of 188 · 5,620 total
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Rotolight's U.S. Patent 10,197,257, arguing anticipation by Pohlert and obviousness over Mueller and Reichow. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the trial.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Rotolight’s U.S. Patent 10,845,044 covering customizable lighting effects, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Mueller, Edwards, and Astera.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Rotolight’s lighting‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Mueller, Edwards, and Astera references. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Rotolight's 2019 lighting system patent, arguing obviousness over Mueller, Showline, and Choong references and opposing discretionary denial.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. failed its IPR challenge against a patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ). The PTAB denied the petition on obviousness grounds (103), finding that the petitioner could not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds (Grounds 1-6). The patent, related to vehicle leveling systems using smart devices, was deemed potentially invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combining prior art references like Thorpe and Clark.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V., challenging nine claims of patent 10762002 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail, citing combinations of prior art references like Kaplan and Ahmed to establish unpatentability.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
R‑Pac International seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Adasa’s RFID tag patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused discretion by refusing a preliminary reply and misapplying prior‑art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Court decision.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
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.