US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 134 of 286 · 8,574 total
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s ‘546 NAND flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over extensive prior art.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited argument about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Vervain’s ‘612 NAND flash memory patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The petition relies on extensive prior‑art patents and technical literature covering hybrid SLC‑MLC flash systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,986,303 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology has filed a PGR petition challenging Radici Chimica’s 2023 patent on engineered yeast for terpene production, arguing obviousness over Bailey and Zhang and lack of enablement due to the claim breadth.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia request Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 5G‑related patent, arguing the Board added an unsupported ‘pre‑equalization’ step in claim construction. They seek vacatur of the denial and to proceed with the review.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the USPTO's decision to institute an IPR against its server‑discovery patent, arguing the Board misread claim language and that the prior art does not teach a list of servers.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO Labs and Biomedical Device Consultants & Laboratories of Colorado have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,237,935, filing a joint motion to terminate the ongoing IPR and keep settlement documents confidential.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their dispute over Patent 8,145,249, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that cancelled 14 claims of its payment‑tokenization patent. The owner contends the Board introduced an unraised obviousness theory, violating procedural rules and the APA. The request asks the Director to reverse the cancellations and confirm the claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). They contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could be harmed if disclosed.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and jointly moved to terminate the related inter partes reviews, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company and Institute for Environmental Health settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and dismiss the petition.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group have settled their dispute over a VoIP audio‑mixing patent and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review.
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.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components argues that US Conec’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not qualify under §102 or disclose the required “slidably received” groove features of claim 1. The patent owner seeks denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to invoke discretionary denial provisions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko have settled their IPR over patent 11,307,369 and jointly request the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. filed an IPR against Senko Advanced Components' patent 11061190; the patent owner submitted a preliminary response.
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
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.