US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 127 of 291 · 8,722 total
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,313,024 optical‑module patent, asserting anticipation by two prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute review despite discretionary denial arguments.
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’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on enablement and obviousness grounds in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the patent documents supported a broad definition of modified PH20 polypeptides, while noting the petitioner had established a likelihood of prevailing on enablement but failed to prove obviousness.
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
The PTAB institution decision in this oncology IPR upheld the patent claims against numerous prior art references related to FOLFIRINOX and nanoliposomal irinotecan. The Board adopted a specific claim construction defining 'treatment' as requiring more than a de minimis therapeutic benefit for the patient.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned against Barco N.V.'s patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted trial on all 18 claims based on the combination of Beel and Christison prior art references.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against BrodTi Inc.'s patent (11416898), challenging claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, including Nicholas and Laidlaw.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged Neurelis, Inc.'s patent claims covering nasal drug delivery formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged claims 1-18 of Neurelis, Inc.'s patent under grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (102). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the invention is unpatentable, based on combining prior art references Gwozdz and Meezan.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis US LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Neurelis, Inc.'s nasal drug formulations patent (8895546) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB institution decision allows Padagis to proceed with the unpatentability arguments against all 22 claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics over a patent covering optical isolator arrays, focusing on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Applied Optoelectronics Inc.'s patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102). The Board specifically rejected arguments based on prior art references Shen and Soldano regarding optical receiving devices.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics' optical patent (10313024), finding the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references Mizobuchi and Akashi.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple parallel IPRs challenging several patents to the Board, instructing them to consolidate proceedings and maintain only one petition per patent based on RPI determinations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00385 concerning battery patent 10,964,927. The denial leaves the original decision that the IPR was not instituted intact.
Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑10 of Ningde Amperex’s ’927 lithium‑ion battery separator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Nishikawa, Chen and Zhang. The petition seeks institution and a finding that all claims are unpatentable.
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.