US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 135 of 188 · 5,620 total
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 10,740,281 after institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Sheha and a new set of Randall‑based grounds. The petition asserts no discretionary denial grounds and requests institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing no discretionary denial grounds exist.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ‘281 patent on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics and Biognosys have filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of the ’360 patent, asserting that the nanoparticle‑based protein assay is fully anticipated or obvious over prior publications by Hu, Cai, and Zaccaria.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics GmbH et al. successfully petitioned for institution in the IPR against The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., challenging claims related to sensor arrays for protein corona analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s cloud security patents, arguing that the claimed vulnerability scanning methods are obvious combinations of known techniques. The petitioner asserts that merging Veselov's snapshot scanning with Basavapatna's risk assessment renders the invention predictable.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands challenges a Request for Director Review filed by BuzzBallz over the eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441, a design patent covering a pop‑top can lid. The petitioner argues the Board correctly found the patent eligible under the AIA and that the new design lacks written‑description support, urging denial of the request.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the BuzzBallz patent case.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
BuzzBallz, LLC asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution of a post‑grant review on its pre‑AIA design patent, arguing the Board misapplied written‑description standards and ignored expert testimony.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands contests the validity of BuzzBallz’s design‑patent for a beverage can lid, arguing that new matter was added to the parent application, making the patent eligible for post‑grant review under the AIA. The reply refutes the patent owner’s reliance on prior PTAB decisions and emphasizes examiner findings of new matter.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Empire Technology’s patent was denied. The Board, led by Judge Ankenbrand, found the petition did not meet the required standards.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging 12 claims of a Bell Semiconductor LLC patent related to Ball Grid Array (BGA) packaging reliability. The petitioner asserts that all claims are unpatentable over prior art by demonstrating predictable modifications using combinations of known semiconductor package designs and stress mitigation techniques.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja filed an IPR petition challenging Dyson's patent (11044979) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed hot air styling methods are predictable combinations of prior art, specifically combining Saito and Lindsey references.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google and others filed a Petition challenging the validity of Headwater Research LLC's patent on wireless end-user device traffic control policies. The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Empire Technology Development LLC's patent related to channel estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious over several distinct prior art references, including Haustein and Tang.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned for institution of its obviousness challenge against BuzzBallz's beverage container patent (11932441). The Board found that the design application introduced new matter, making the claims eligible for review.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
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.