US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 123 of 188 · 5,620 total
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned for the IPR institution on 20 claims of Stellar's '910 patent. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness to overcome the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, allowing the substantive challenge to proceed.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions IPR against Stellar LLC. Institution was ultimately denied, aligning with prior findings that weighed factors against proceeding.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
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.