US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 131 of 286 · 8,574 total
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread files a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that 20 claims of its power‑management patent are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in obviousness analysis and claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB emailed counsel confirming receipt of the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00646. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review request asking the USPTO to vacate the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its patent 11805267, alleging abuse of discretion and citing statutory and prior‑art grounds.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied its IPR petition on DISH Technologies’ adaptive‑streaming patent, arguing the Board improperly ignored the merits and misapplied General Plastic factors.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00498, leaving the original denial in place.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites' petitions for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to DISH Technologies' patent 11,677,798.
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.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
PTAB notified Fluidmaster and Danco that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-00635. The petitioner may submit a limited 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Dish Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' broadband patent. The denial leaves the original institution decision intact.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have jointly moved to terminate their IPR dispute over patent 11,253,719.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of a prior institution denial in IPR2024-00540, leaving the original decision unchanged.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774. The parties jointly filed a motion requesting the Board terminate the proceeding before any oral hearing.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of U.S. Patent 12,102,027 covering a prescriptive seed‑treatment method, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites requests Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on DISH's multi‑bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of the Leaning reference.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535 concerning patent 9,724,802. The order confirms that the decision stands.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024‑00517, arguing the Board misapplied the General Plastic analysis and Fintiv factors.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
An email from the PTAB Director authorizes ADC Solutions Auto to submit a limited 15‑page response to Director Review requests in IPR2024-00577 and IPR2024-00671, with no new evidence permitted.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a settlement‑based termination for Jeisys Medical in three IPRs while allowing the proceedings to continue for EndyMed. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for a review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving DISH Technologies’ patent 10,469,554. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and failed to consider the petition’s merits.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR targeting DISH's adaptive‑streaming patent. The petitioner contends the Board failed to consider the merits of its "Leaning" prior art reference and misapplied General Plastic factors.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute IPR2024‑00514, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and made factual errors.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites filed Director Review requests challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for eight IPRs against DISH Technologies. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and erred on material facts. The review seeks reversal of the denial.
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.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of its petition. The petition relies on the strong prior art reference WO 02/49343 A1 (“Leaning”).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR on its cloud firewall patent. The petition argues the Board erred on both the combination rationale and a typographical claim‑mapping error.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. submits a preliminary response to AT&T’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited prior art (Babaei, Fwu, Lee, Agiwal) does not teach the claimed “different‑from” RNTI, common search‑space, or confirmation features of claims 2 and 4, and therefore the petition should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction for an “end-to-end tunnel” and seeking to vacate the institution of review for Cisco’s IPR. The Board had instituted the IPR based on an obviousness finding over Hankins and Munger 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.