US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 132 of 286 · 8,574 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review, asserting that the PTAB panel’s claim construction of “end‑to‑end tunnel” is erroneous and that the institution of the IPR against Cisco’s VPN tunneling patent should be vacated.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for review of the PTAB’s denial to institute several IPRs, including the challenge to DISH Technologies’ patent 10,951,680. The institution decisions remain denied.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The USPTO Director denied Microchip's request to review the institution denial of Aptiv's automotive electronics patent.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request in IPR2024-00383 to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to have the agreement treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies have reached a confidential settlement over U.S. Patent 8,090,025 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,255 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement. Institution of the petition is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,218,995. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
Par Health, Inc. v.InfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
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.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Netlist’s ’608 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board missed critical explanations of how the Osanai reference satisfies the claimed data‑path and delay‑circuit limitations.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
Altria Client Services LLC v.--
Altria Client Services LLC petitions the PTAB to cancel a design patent for a dog‑toy set that mimics Marlboro cigarette packaging, citing a 1959 Life Magazine ad and a 1976 trademark registration as prior art.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sanas.AI’s 12,417,756 patent covering real‑time accent mimicking, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art speech‑processing references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip files a brief urging the PTAB Director to deny Aptiv’s request for review of the Board’s obviousness ruling on claims 13‑14 of U.S. Patent 9,619,420, a USB switching invention.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,852 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
The IPR concerning patent 8,760,454 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. Realtek and ATI filed a joint motion to end the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of BuzzBallz’s ’441 beverage‑container patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art cans and a lack of written description.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of AutoConnect Holdings’ U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 covering vehicle user‑profile systems. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
GD Energy Products has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑15 of Kerr Machine Co.'s 12,152,582 pump patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art pump designs and indefiniteness of claim 15.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Duesenfeld’s battery‑recycling patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim language.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Biofrontera Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Biofrontera’s nanoemulsion patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Uhlmann and Palazzolo prior‑art references.
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
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.