US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 127 of 188 · 5,620 total
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’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
The petitioner and Carver Edison, Inc. settled their inter partes review before trial, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss and termination of the proceeding. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The Board found that the claims were unpatentable under obviousness (Grounds 3 and 4), specifically over a combination of Schaffer's valve with Hartley's string or Eller's wire. The decision hinged on finding that a POSA would have had reason to make this substitution, leading to predictable results in hemostatic device design.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR No. 2024‑00898, seeking confidential treatment of their settlement agreement under 35 U.S.C. §317. The parties argue the settlement resolves all issues concerning patent 10,981,350.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00861 covering DexCom’s glucose‑monitor patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’350 patent covering wood‑plastic composite technology.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson Inc. et al. filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against XR Communications LLC's patent related to wireless communications. The petition challenges key claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the technology is obvious over prior art references Trigui and Rudrapatna. The grounds focus on the predictability of adopting a 'cross' connect approach for MIMO transceivers.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement agreement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00787 after settling their dispute with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding, which had not yet been instituted.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their IPR dispute with patent owner Implicit, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The Board granted motions to keep the settlement agreements confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024-00605 covering Nokia’s patent 10,536,714. The Board granted termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu LLC and Capital One filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Patent No. 6976248, arguing they are obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Johnson, Parthasarathy, Fowlow). The petitioner asserts that the claimed software delivery methods lack inventive step under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (10536714) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed method for improving motion vector prediction was already known through prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, and Nakamura. This is an opening petition challenging a core technology in video compression standards.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia's video encoding patent, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'the block,' narrowing its scope to be associated with the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged 17 claims of Nokia's video compression patent via IPR, arguing obviousness over prior art. The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, particularly concerning the combination of Rusert and Karczewicz techniques.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding.
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.