US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 129 of 188 · 5,620 total
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the IPR file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00384 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Serendia, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests Director Review to terminate IPR2024-00384, arguing the Board improperly expedited institution of time‑barred petitions despite a pending ITC validity finding. The petition cites the rescinded Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances to seek dismissal.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have settled their dispute over a dermatology‑device patent and jointly moved to terminate Ilooda’s participation in the pending IPR, requesting the settlement remain confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality rules. The filing cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and video‑codec startup Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over a moving‑picture encoding patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical settled with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents during its IPR against Serendia, leading to a motion to suspend the schedule.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR only for Jeisys Medical Inc. after a settlement with Serendia, while EndyMed remains as a petitioner. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Ilooda Co., Ltd. challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 in a petition asserting anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The challengers argue that the patent's claims are rendered unpatentable by prior art references including Mehta, Na ’848, Lee, and Livneh.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung filed a Petition challenging claims of the '995 Patent, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art including Phek, Segall, Martins, and He. The petitioner asserts that combining these video coding techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a POSITA.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc.'s IPR challenge against Serendia, LLC's '836 patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board determined that the Petitioner's grounds of obviousness over prior art like Ganz were plausible and warranted further proceedings. This decision moves the dispute toward a trial phase in the medical device technology space.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully challenged four claims of Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC's patent (10218995) in the PTAB IPR proceeding. The Board found that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Alertus Technologies against Desktop Alert, Inc.'s patent (9172765). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness and anticipation challenges.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied WIZ, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd., finding that a statutory disclaimer covered all challenged claims.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all unpatentability challenges against the broadhead patent. The Board upheld the patent owner's position on claim construction, specifically defining 'blade member' as having a cutting surface. Despite detailed arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references, the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and restrict its access.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes reviews covering patents 7,534,584; 8,822,143; 9,637,771; and 9,845,486. The Board terminated the proceedings based on a written settlement agreement and granted confidentiality for the agreement.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,740,926 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding before a final written decision was issued.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the related IPRs. The motion relies on statutory authority and Board precedent favoring termination after settlement.
EndyMed Medical 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. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Intellectual Ventures I LLC's wireless communication patent (7623439) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge centers on whether a minor modification to OFDM cyclic delay diversity is inventive over existing prior art standards.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenges Patent 9845486 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in microbiological detection methods. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Rayman and Nagar, disclose or render obvious the claimed steps involving sampling, dilution, and assaying.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to Cyclic Diversity Systems (OFDM), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically found deficiencies in meeting the duration requirements when comparing cyclic advance against prior art disclosures like Larsson and IEEE.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR challenges against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11740926). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Veselov and Mohanty regarding cloud security methods.
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.