US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 131 of 188 · 5,620 total
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 B2 before the PTAB, leading to institution of trial. The petition asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art references Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Belden Canada ULC's patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation over prior art references including Fukui. The Board found Petitioner’s arguments persuasive regarding the technical scope of the modular fiber optic cassette system.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Stratus Medical's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed RF neurotomy features could be achieved by combining existing prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent related to beamforming in wireless communications. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 'compelling merits' despite arguments regarding obviousness.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board adopted the Petitioner's broad definition of POSA in the field of thermal ablation systems.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems initiated an Inter Partes Review against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent 10601780, challenging claims related to network security and virtualization. The petitioner successfully argued that the claimed features were obvious in view of prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Petitioners including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson have filed an IPR challenging 22 claims of a patent related to Handover and Carrier Aggregation. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious when combining prior art references like Nokia or Ericsson with relevant 3GPP standards. This filing initiates a major challenge against the patent's validity.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ZipString LLC regarding string shooting devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds, specifically addressing whether YouTube videos qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the PTAB review of patent 11,808,994.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi. The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple independent and dependent claims unpatentable. The grounds were anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), based on the prior art reference Tateishi.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
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.