US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 118 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against VirtaMove’s virtualization patent was rejected. The Board upheld the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 316, leaving the patent’s validity untouched.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent, and the patent owner may submit a brief, evidence‑free response.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR against VirtaMove’s 2014 data‑migration patent. The petition argues the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a “settled expectations” doctrine.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Board email outlining procedural requirements for Director Review responses in IPR2025-00488 and related cases.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent 7,784,058. The Patent Owner may submit a brief response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs against VirtaMove’s migration‑related patent. The order applies uniformly to all listed cases.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑5 of U.S. Patent 11,069,337, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura, and Kristjansson.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing container‑virtualization technologies such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Callender patent and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,032,039 patent covering network‑based content management. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑2002 web and mobile references and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sterling Computers' 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, citing obviousness over Dumais, Rose, and a Rose‑Bieganski combination.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering container virtualization. The petition argues obviousness over prior‑art systems such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole and Gélinas and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 9,032,039 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations and urges the Board to institute the review.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing they are obvious over Blaser, Calder, and Schmidt-449. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against SoundClear Technologies LLC regarding voice-content control claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over the prior art reference 'Shin.'
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms successfully challenged Sterling Computers Corporation's patent for content relevance techniques in a PTAB IPR. The Board found that the patent was obvious over prior art (Rose and Bieganski) and adopted Petitioner’s claim constructions, leading to an institution decision.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec seeks director review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against its 18‑year‑old cochlear‑implant patent. Anthony Inc. counters, asserting the Director acted within discretion and that a material error involving the Carter reference exists.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec, LLC seeks Director review to deny institution of an IPR against its 18‑year‑old anti‑sweat controller patent, arguing strong settled expectations and non‑material prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of its IPR on patent 7,502,348, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violated due process and the APA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless responded to Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution, arguing the Board acted within its discretion under §314 and the Fintiv factors. The Board denied the review.
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.