US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 130 of 188 · 5,620 total
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully challenged claims 1-30 of the '486 patent in a PTAB Institution Decision, establishing a reasonable likelihood that the methods for pathogen detection are unpatentable. The petitioner relied on prior art references including Rayman and Nagar to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness across multiple grounds.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services filed an authorized response defending its right to submit new evidence with a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response in IPR2024‑01221. The brief argues that the Board’s discretion was properly exercised and that the patent owner had no due‑process prejudice.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB Director denied Early Warning Services’ request for a rehearing of the institution decision on Intellectual Ventures’ patent 7,314,167, leaving the institution intact.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging TIAX LLC's patent covering lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Lampe-Onnerud and Takagi, or rendered obvious in view of prior art combinations like Park/Lampe-Onnerud.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services challenges Intellectual Ventures II LLC's patent on secure transaction apparatuses, asserting that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on references like Wang et al., Drummond, and TAO to establish grounds for unpatentability under 102 and 103. This initial petition sets up a broad challenge across multiple claim sets related to mobile authentication.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered to be kept confidential.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face, Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against FriendliAI Inc., arguing that the challenged claims related to Transformer inference optimization are obvious.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Lian Li’s illumination‑fan patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its LED fan patent unpatentable. The request centers on inconsistent claim‑construction positions between the IPR and parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,301,666. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that the Board should end the proceeding before any merits are decided.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial, resulting in termination of the proceedings and confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,301,666 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR Petition challenging 13 claims of a patent covering cyclonic separation and filtration systems. The petition argues that the claimed vacuum cleaner features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core technology in the high-end cleaning appliance market.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 1-5 of the '336 Patent. The petition asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of various prior art references related to illumination fan assemblies.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 49 claims related to modular cassette systems used in fiber optics. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art combinations involving Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope and others challenged Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter. The petitioner focuses heavily on how these existing designs meet specific structural limitations of the patented technology.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are invalid based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Specifically, they argue prior art references such as Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor render the claimed features unpatentable.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Petitioner Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's '664 Patent, asserting that all claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references in RF ablation technology. The challenge rests entirely on statutory grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103, utilizing multiple prior art patents related to neurotomy devices.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle claims at the PTAB, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner argues that combining multiple prior art references—including Racz, Fitz, and Lee—would have motivated a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art to create the claimed device.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical filed a Petition challenging Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent ('782 Patent). The central argument is that the claimed device is obvious because it merely combines conventional features from prior art references like Racz, Fitz, and Lee. This challenges 27 claims related to advanced medical ablation technology.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple major carriers, including AT&T and T-Mobile, have filed a Petition challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '868 patent on grounds of obviousness. The petitioners argue that the core concepts related to beam correspondence and higher layer signaling in 5G NR were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Jung and Xiong. This challenge targets several claims relating to advanced wireless communication methods.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim based on obviousness. The Board specifically found evidence supporting Claim 1 over Lai and Hasegawa, while also noting inconclusive findings regarding Tsuji/Huang combinations.
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.