US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 87 · 2,587 total
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
Intel Corporation initiated this Petition challenging the validity of Ericsson's patent (7151430), asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Taniguchi, Midya, and Raghavan to demonstrate that claimed features in inductive coupling/antenna design were already known or suggested.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Multiple major carriers (AT&T, Ericsson, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent covering base station apparatus for transport block segmentation. The challengers argue the claims are anticipated and obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 using prior art references Lee and Zheng.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges the validity of EMKinetics' '669 patent by asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Gesotti and Burnett. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology for tremor treatment is already disclosed in the prior art, presenting multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209 held by Dialect LLC, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing conversational AI prior art. The petition details multiple grounds of obviousness (Grounds 1-5), combining references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Redfern to demonstrate predictability in speech recognition techniques.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's patent (7502738) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Coffman with Kanevsky and Ronning predictably renders the claimed conversational AI features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's U.S. Patent No. 8,015,006 B2 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed speech recognition and domain agent methods are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Zadrozny.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent 9031845, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge centers on whether combining existing conversational AI and distributed computing prior art renders the claimed speech-enabled vehicle functions predictable.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's patent 7693720 in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Coffman and Zadrozny to demonstrate that the claimed speech recognition features were conventional knowledge for a POSITA.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent (8447607) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petition targets 15 claims related to conversational AI, arguing the technology is well-known in speech-enabled interfaces.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,849,652 held by Dialect LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references, primarily Coffman and Kennewick. This challenge relates to speech recognition and conversational AI systems.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent 7640160, arguing that Claim 12 is obvious over prior art references Kennewick and Ross. The petition asserts that combining the disclosures of these two patents renders the claimed knowledge-enhanced speech recognition engine predictable.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. filed an opening petition to challenge Infogation Corp.'s patent (US 10107628) in the PTAB, alleging anticipation and obviousness of navigation system claims. The petitioner asserts that prior art, particularly JP973, discloses methods for using artistic maps with coordinate transformation for destination selection.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. filed an opening petition challenging the validity of Infogation Corp.'s patent (6292743), focusing on obviousness under 103. The challenge targets claims related to route guidance and ITS architecture, citing extensive prior art from government documents and international patents.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in a PTAB petition, arguing the technology is obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner contends that existing hybrid devices integrating secure memory and reader circuits render the claimed digital key/reader systems unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in an IPR petition, arguing the technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references like Dua and Giobbi. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are merely well-known concepts applied to secure authentication systems.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia filed an IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC regarding its vehicle access control systems patent (10407026). The petitioners argue that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art, primarily Zaid.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
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).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. filed an IPR challenging Yangtze Memory Technologies Company's 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (10658378). The petition asserts that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references like Toyama and Mushiga.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology petitioned to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 10861872, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Park and Tessariol. The PTAB granted institution based on a reasonable likelihood of success, despite ongoing district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging the validity of Yangtze Memory Technologies' '031 Patent, arguing that key claims are obvious over prior art references Kim and Tessariol. The petition focuses on 3D NAND memory structures, specifically multi-stack staircase designs and etch profiles. Micron asserts that the combination of teachings from these references renders the claimed features predictable and non-novel.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging claims of Yangtze Memory Technologies' 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (US 10,937,806). The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious under Section 103 in light of prior art from Toyama.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash Memory operation claims, challenging the patent's validity under 102 and 103. The petition argues that the claimed features are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references.
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.