US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 125 of 286 · 8,574 total
LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
LG Display has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,293,691 covering an OLED display device. The petition asserts indefiniteness, lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread seeks a PTAB Director Review to overturn the Board’s claim construction that narrows the carrier‑movement limitation of its semiconductor patent. The owner argues the construction conflicts with the specification, prosecution history, and district‑court rulings, and that the cited references do not teach the required functionality.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s labs and Eye Therapies have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR docket. The request cites statutory authority and seeks limited disclosure.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in Texas Instruments’ IPRs against Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, ordering new discovery on the privity issue.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that all 21 claims of its ’749 footwear‑knitting patent are unpatentable. The Owner contends the Board erred by disregarding the petitioner’s expert testimony and by incorrectly finding that the Nishida reference anticipates the claims.
Albaugh, LLC v.BASF SE et al.
Albaugh, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑6 of BASF’s 2025 glufosinate formulation patent, asserting anticipation by the Long patent and obviousness over Long alone or combined with synthesis references.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction in a power‑semiconductor patent owned by Monolithic Power Systems. The owner contends the Board’s construction mischaracterizes the claims and that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Whirlpool’s 12,543,922 dishwasher rack patent on obviousness and indefiniteness grounds, relying on multiple prior‑art references.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00458 against LiTL’s patent. The petitioner alleges arbitrary evaluation of references and inconsistency with a prior panel decision.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace Medical Concepts' 12,268,428 bunion‑correction patent, alleging that all 30 claims are anticipated or obvious over well‑known surgical textbooks and prior‑art patents. The petition lists ten grounds covering §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00457 against LiTL’s patent 9,880,715. The petitioner alleges arbitrary reasoning and inconsistency with a prior panel decision.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.
Ascendis Pharma A/S et al. v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Ascendis Pharma has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of BioMarin’s U.S. Patent 12,331,106 covering CNP‑variant treatments for achondroplasia. The petition alleges obviousness, anticipation, lack of enablement, and an improper dependent claim. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references covering blood‑fractionation and calculation methods.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the IPR decision on Entropic’s patent 8,223,775, leaving the original outcome intact.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments petitioned to challenge Greenthread’s semiconductor patent and sought joinder with a related IPR. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and granted both institution and joinder, merging the proceeding into IPR2023-01242.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00452, asserting the Board misapplied KSR precedent and case law on motivation and bodily incorporation. The petition references Intel decisions and a related institution ruling on another patent.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its cable‑modem patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by examining references in isolation and seeks clarification on third‑party amicus participation.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Beckman Coulter’s 2024 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs and lack of written description and enablement for key claim elements such as a “curved mirror” and “semiconductor detector.”
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools, Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. filed a PGR petition challenging four claims of Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting lack of written description, added matter, obviousness over multiple helmet references, and anticipation by Klein's 2019 news release.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast challenges the PTAB’s finding that its TV channel‑selection patent is unpatentable, filing a Director Review Request alleging the Board ignored prior Office findings on the same technology. The Patent Owner seeks reversal of the decision under the Director’s 2025 memorandum.
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.