US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 291 · 8,722 total
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed a petition for IPR of IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 8,582,789 covering a hearing‑enhancement system, seeking cancellation of all 76 challenged claims as obvious over Anderson and other prior‑art patents.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of MeshDynamics' ’762 VoIP mesh‑network patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition includes claim constructions and requests the Board to institute review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network‑1’s eUICC security patent (U.S. 12,166,869) faces a petition from Samsung. The patent owner argues the references either teach away or lack the required cryptographic linkage, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC security patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering secure profile provisioning and IMSI encryption.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Westinghouse (Wabtec) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Railware’s 9,517,782 patent covering a railway block‑release system, arguing the claims are obvious over public FRA reports and several secret‑code patents.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 47835 patent covering railway block‑and‑unblock code systems. The petition asserts obviousness over the FRA‑Report and several secret‑code references.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 49,115 patent. The petition asserts that claims 20‑36 are obvious over the FRA‑Report combined with secret‑code references. No discretionary denial is alleged.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
In IPR2024‑01094, the PTAB held claims 1,2,6,8‑14 of Pictiva’s OLED patent unpatentable over the Ma reference, while claims 3‑4 were upheld. The decision hinged on obviousness of joint vaporization and metal‑complex coordination.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of Samsung's challenged OLED claims unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over multiple prior‑art OLED references. The decision affirms the institution of the IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy, together with Malikie Innovations, filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement that resolves their dispute over a smart‑home energy patent.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
The IPR concerning Patent 11,119,756 was terminated after Vivint Smart Home, NRG Energy and Malikie Innovations reached a confidential settlement before the trial was instituted.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motive’s driver‑monitoring patent (US 12,062,243), asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art CNN references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s 9,318,609 FinFET patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier TSMC patents and related publications. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103, relying on Xu, Ching, and Huang references.
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twenty claims of Malikie Innovations’ ’756 patent covering IoT software‑update control, citing obviousness over the Storto and Won publications.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for multiple IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., allowing the merits phase to proceed.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Board issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution for several IPRs, denying institution in some cases because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that earlier patents by Mgrdechian and others anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s proximity‑based transaction patent resulted in the Board finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art wireless messaging systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑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
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies' e‑commerce server patent, challenging 19 claims as obvious over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia. The petition argues a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary standards.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' 7,936,736 B2 patent, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, leading the PTAB to deem all eight claims unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑based wireless communication patent was denied, leaving the patent intact. The Board found the prior‑art arguments insufficiently particularized.
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.