US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 125 of 188 · 5,620 total
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions PTAB to invalidate RAI Strategic's 2024 electronic‑cigarette patent, arguing lack of written description and obviousness over Takeuchi, Kim, Pienemann and Susa. The petition seeks institution and opposes discretionary denial.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,925,202 covering an electrically‑powered vaping article, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over Takeuchi, Pienemann, Kim and Susa references and lack written‑description support.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent covering sandboxed computing environments, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1 and 2 of Croga Innovations’ VoIP codec‑switching patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,785,759 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. The challenge asserts that the claims related to numerology bandwidth determination in wireless systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This initial filing details multiple grounds of obviousness, combining various prior art references including Noh, Tooher, Islam, Jiang, and Miao.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners, including 3Shape A/S, have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent claims related to 3D scanning and stitching technology. The central argument asserts that the claimed invention is obvious over prior art references Kriveshko and Zhang when combining global motion optimization techniques. This challenges the scope of a major patent in the computer vision market.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging K. Mizra LLC's patent covering digital signal processing and calibration methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on a combination of multiple prior art references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging claims related to electrically-powered aerosol generators. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of unpatentability, despite narrowing claim construction on 'smoking article' to devices containing tobacco.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding VoIP bandwidth management claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., citing efficiency concerns. The Board found that despite arguments regarding material error and prior art relevance, denying institution served the integrity of the system given the parallel ITC investigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review in an IPR case (IPR2024-01280), vacating the denial of institution. The proceeding is remanded for parties to clarify arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and parallel ITC litigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Ecto World's petition to institute IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings regarding a tobacco-containing smoking article, citing the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error despite using previously presented prior art.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon's IPR petition against NL GIKEN regarding a TV viewing experience patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on all 16 challenged claims, focusing heavily on obviousness over Cooper and Slotznick.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, primarily on obviousness grounds involving hemostasis valve features.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim and ordered the trial to proceed.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Roku’s ’790 patent. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317 and Board practice allowing termination when no merits have been decided.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed a petition for inter partes review of Charge Fusion’s U.S. Patent 11,631,987, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering EV charging systems and user interfaces.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 catheter‑hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references. The petition argues the preamble term “aspiration” is non‑limiting and requests the Board to institute the review.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patents under grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board construed the key term 'filament' to require flexibility, which influenced its initial assessment of the claims. Institution was granted, setting the stage for a full trial on infringement and validity.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla successfully challenged Charge Fusion Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, rendering numerous independent and dependent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This outcome significantly weakens the asserted patent portfolio for Charge Fusion.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment regarding network performance patents. The Board cited the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline as a key factor favoring denial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The Board found that the claims were obvious over prior art references by combining known features to achieve a predictable result. Despite initial disputes over claim construction, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation for combining specific prior art elements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent succeeded; all 24 claims were found obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and thus unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
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.