US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 121 of 188 · 5,620 total
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited, along with two universities, settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,230,656. The Board terminated the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 10,572,896, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the review.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Feit Electric’s 8,604,678 patent, asserting that its claims on white‑light LED devices with TiO₂ diffusing layers are obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 12, and 25‑26 of Saris’s ’394 bicycle‑trainer patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Zwinkels and obvious over Zwinkels alone or combined with Papadopoulos. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lionra Technologies' U.S. Patent 7,738,471 covering high‑speed packet processing. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks an IPR to invalidate 13 claims of a media‑measurement patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, arguing obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR review of U.S. Patent 10,719,848 covering media‑measurement methods, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over prior art and lack written‑description support for video‑data features.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies has initiated an IPR challenging the patentability of barocaloric cooling and heating agents held by Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Xie, Mañosa, and Patel.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s attempt to invalidate Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the patent description sufficiently broad to cover video data samples, defeating the obviousness challenge over prior art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Lionra Technologies regarding patent 7,738,471, challenging claims related to high-speed packet header processing.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the '656 patent, challenging claims related to barocaloric cooling agents. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of 'organic material,' supporting the Petitioner's argument that the claimed invention is unpatentable over prior art references like Mañosa and Patel.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they were obvious in light of prior art references (Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, Russell). The Board adopted a construction of 'concurrently writing' that aligned with both parties and district court precedent. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of disclosures taught all limitations of the claims for high-speed packet processing.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports opposes SportsCastr’s request for Director Review, contending the Board properly analyzed the webserver limitation and that PANDA’s arguments were waived. The Board’s decision should stand and the request be denied.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok’s request for a Director Review of the USPTO’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against NTECH Properties was denied. The Board affirmed the original institution denial, leaving the patent challenge unresolved.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs TikTok and NTECH Properties that Director Review requests for IPR2024-01341 and IPR2024-01343 have been received, setting a five‑business‑day deadline for a brief response and prohibiting new evidence.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 9,923,947 covering custom media programming. The petition relies on three § 103 obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
Alamar Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Olink's 7,883,848 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art combinations such as Kanan/Neri and Baez/Landegren. The petitioner asserts the examiner omitted critical references and that no discretionary factors justify denial.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok's IPR petition against NTECH Properties was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that Petitioner could not adequately teach or suggest key limitations from the cited prior art (Marcus156 and Ferman).
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision was granted, finding sufficient rationale for the Petitioner to combine teachings from prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically found that combining Ellis's content source with Spivey’s live data server devices would improve latency in real-time event delivery.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments because UiPath relied on conclusory assertions regarding motivation-to-combine rather than factual support.
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.