US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 124 of 188 · 5,620 total
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,626,461 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and cites public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑46 of Chiaro Technology’s ‘380 breast‑pump patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition stresses examiner error and cites strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 regarding 3D voxel data processing used in medical imaging, asserting anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Sekiguchi and Partain. The claims are broadly challenged across multiple statutory grounds (102 and 103) by 3Shape A/S et al., citing related district court litigation.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an IPR petition challenging Medit Corporation’s patent on digital dentistry technology. The petitioner argues that the claimed 3D scanning methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on combining prior art systems.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an Initial Petition challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner targets multiple claim subsets using Trousset, Durbin, and Kariathungal as evidence of obviousness.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S et al. filed an opening petition challenging Medit Corporation's patent (7912257) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed real-time 3D dental scanning method is predictable when combining prior art disclosures from Kopelman and Quadling.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC has initiated a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 held by Songbird Tech, LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims covering voice messaging and web communication systems are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This challenge targets fundamental components like audio encoding/decoding and browser-resident applications.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that all 46 challenged claims of the '380 patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully argued obviousness (103) over various prior art references, including Chang, Fang, and Yuen, concerning breast pump systems.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World challenges the USPTO’s denial of its IPR on a disposable vaporizer patent, arguing material error and improper use of the Fintiv memo. The petitioner seeks institution of the review.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World and SV3 seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings’ ‘202 patent covering disposable vaporizer devices. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework and improperly limited its review to two pages of the petition.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under patent‑law confidentiality provisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,160,466. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra filed a joint request to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to dismiss the pending IPR. The motion cites statutory confidentiality protections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus filed a joint request to have their IPR settlement materials treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The motion seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon, its affiliates and Twitch filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01161 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken, ending the dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,615.
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.