US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 126 of 286 · 8,574 total
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Comcast's request for Director review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00445, keeping the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The Board denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the IPR concerning Entropic Communications’ patent 11,399,206. The denial applies to three related IPRs filed by the same parties.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT seeks to invalidate Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent (U.S. 12,171,916) by arguing all 22 claims are obvious, lack written description, and are abstract calculations. The petition requests cancellation of the entire patent.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00435 concerning patent 11,381,866. The order also applies to two related IPRs.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Entropic’s cable‑modem patent. The petition asserts the Board erred by analyzing each prior‑art reference in isolation instead of as the combinations with Thibeault. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Enveric Biosciences Canada, Inc.
Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Enveric Biosciences' 2024 patent covering halogenated psilocybin derivatives, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement for all 26 claims.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s request for review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00677 and related cases. The order confirms that no Director Review will be granted.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving patent 7,523,484. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC affirmed the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that extraordinary circumstances exist.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent (12,268,475) on obviousness grounds, relying on prior art such as Lisogurski, Tran, LeBoeuf and Carlson.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Endymed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA has filed a post‑grant review petition against Smart Denture Conversions’ U.S. Patent 12,156,781 covering dental implant fasteners. The petition alleges indefiniteness, lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references. Straumann seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all 16 claims.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Jeisys Medical Inc. after the parties settled their dispute. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential, and the proceeding remains open only for EndyMed petitioners.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda's participation in an IPR over a dermatology device patent, citing a settlement that resolves the dispute.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before any substantive briefing or hearing.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
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.