US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 126 of 291 · 8,722 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of DataFeel’s 12,036,174 patent covering percussive massage devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of written description and enablement. It also argues the Board should not invoke the Fintiv discretionary denial provision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to review PayRange’s 2024 patent covering mobile‑device‑driven vending‑machine payments. The petition asserts anticipation, obviousness, and § 101 ineligibility for all 20 claims, citing Low, Arora, Freeny and Casey as prior art.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PayRange’s 2024 mobile‑payment patent covering vending‑machine transactions, arguing obviousness and patent‑ineligibility. The petition also rebuts any discretionary denial.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC seeks IPR cancellation of Neurelis' 8,895,546 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic challenges DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting that 27 claims are obvious over earlier streaming patents and standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR, arguing strong merits and favorable discretionary factors.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking institution of a challenge to all 34 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑snapshot patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,660,560 patent covering automatic neighbor‑cell list updates, asserting obviousness over multiple Ericsson patents and 3GPP standards.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Maxell’s 7,850,313 projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate BrodTi Inc.’s 11,416,898 patent covering internet‑based project financing via advertising. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners seek cancellation of all 25 claims of DISH’s multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art systems.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis seeks to invalidate Neurelis' 11,241,414 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia seek IPR cancellation of a G.fast‑related patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Bingham, Strobel, and ITU contributions Wei and Kuipers.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Orca Security’s U.S. Patent No. 11,627,154, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Keren and Morgan. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics' optical‑transceiver patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules, citing Wu and Mizue as anticipatory prior art.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which covers a mercury‑removal method for coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier conference papers and patents, and that the patent lacks priority support for its bromine‑related limitations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which claims mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d). The case is pending Board decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s U.S. Patent 11,344,552 covering a liposomal irinotecan regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of KPN’s ’669 patent, asserting obviousness over Widegren, Widegren‑793, ETSI TS 183 063 and Astrom, and urging the Board not to deny institution.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 10, and 12 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 9,547,226, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Kurosaki, Miyamae, and Kitano references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic petitions the PTAB to invalidate DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The Board is asked to institute the IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of DISH Technologies' multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis seeks inter partes review of Neurelis’s 11,793,786 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing that all 27 claims are obvious over prior art and that the patent owner is estopped from contesting issues already decided in a prior IPR.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ optical isolator array patent, arguing anticipation by a Chinese patent and obviousness over that patent combined with a U.S. reference. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
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.