US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 127 of 286 · 8,574 total
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that the ’648 patent’s preamble is non‑limiting and that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. It also attacks the patent owner’s § 315(b) time‑bar defense.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00679, maintaining the Board’s original ruling against InfoExpress’s patent.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s IPR against American GNC’s 6,671,648 patent was denied. The Board upheld its finding that claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Smith and Tingleff references, and rejected Nintendo’s secondary‑consideration and real‑party‑in‑interest arguments.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Chevron and Scout filed a joint motion to stay Pilot's infringement suit while the PTAB reviews the disputed patent in IPR2024-00385. The district court granted the stay, administratively closing the case pending the PTAB's final written decision.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and co‑petitioners' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,134,400, arguing the cited reference is not prior art and fails to teach the claimed SRB configurations, urging the Board to deny institution.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia and Jeisys Medical settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks submits a corrected certification of word count and updated certificate of service for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ patent 8,190,610.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the IPR on patent 8,505,332. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
The IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,660,473 was terminated after the petitioner and patent owner reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the proceeding.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems requested Director Review in IPR2024-00677 concerning patent 8,578,444 owned by InfoExpress; the Board will decide whether to grant the review.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its vehicle‑power‑management patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied the § 325(d) discretionary denial test, re‑hashing arguments already considered during prosecution.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2. The PTAB granted the parties' joint motion to terminate the inter‑ partes review and treated the settlement documents as business‑confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon’s request for a Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia’s patent 11,805,267, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent. Nokia argues the Board misapplied 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the prior art and arguments were already considered during prosecution.
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.