US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 133 of 188 · 5,620 total
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision Inc. challenges GoPro's patent on grounds of obviousness, arguing that existing prior art references render the stabilization claims predictable. Petitioner asserts that combining techniques from Zhou, Kwatra, and Shi provides a reasonable expectation of success for improving video stabilization accuracy. This challenge targets 20 claims related to imaging and video processing.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
A petition was filed challenging Autoscribe Corporation's '621 patent, which covers tokenization methods for online payment processing. The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques are obvious over prior art references, specifically PayPal’s Express Checkout and Schlesser systems. The PTAB found sufficient grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) to institute the review.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision successfully convinced the PTAB that GoPro's video stabilization patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have combined prior art teachings from Zhou and Kwatra to achieve better stabilization techniques. This decision establishes a significant challenge to the validity of key features in modern video processing patents.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by M&A Ventures against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patent. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability assertions, particularly regarding claim construction and prior art limitations.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch argues that the PTAB correctly rejected P&G’s attempts to reinterpret claim language and that the challenged deodorant stick claims are obvious over prior art. The petition also rebuts P&G’s RPI argument, maintaining that Dr. Squatch was the sole real party in interest.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,510 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,808,036 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,295,288 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
P&G filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn an IPR finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant patent was obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 8’s hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a real‑party‑in‑interest defect.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,800 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled all disputes over patent 9,723,878 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and keep the settlement confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,289,016 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 to end the proceeding before a final decision is issued.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged The Procter & Gamble Company’s '706 Patent, arguing that its claims regarding natural deodorants are unpatentable. The petitioner relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness (35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103). These challenges focus on the use of basic concepts and ingredient combinations found in existing prior art.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike challenges SherryWear’s patent (9,808,036) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claimed pocket bra designs are obvious over existing prior art references. The petition asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations of references like Barg, York, and Pintor. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the two companies.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully challenged The Procter & Gamble Company's patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability for key deodorant compositions. The Board found that prior art references taught sufficient motivation to combine elements across different personal care fields.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied the petition to invalidate claims related to small cell enhancements, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning technical limitations in resource scheduling.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully moved forward in its IPR against SherryWear's '800 patent, with the PTAB instituting the case on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for all six challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenging Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness assertions against multiple prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all 23 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706 unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions were anticipated or rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all six claims of the '904 patent unpatentable. The Board determined that the claimed features were anticipated or obvious over prior art references (Kick, Ackermann, Kaminski, Hutchinson).
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes review proceedings, resulting in the termination of all petitions without a merits decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.
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.