US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 135 of 286 · 8,574 total
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging 20 claims of Pioneer’s corn‑variety patent, arguing obviousness, lack of utility, and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution of the review and raises novel legal questions about plant‑utility claim drafting.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch defends its IPv6 transition patent against Juniper’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that key references are not prior art.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sciencons’ 603 patent covering a radioisotope generator for targeted alpha‑therapy, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement. The petition seeks cancellation of all 20 claims.
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 factual dispute about the Oborne prior art and that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response opposes Juniper’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,451,844, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that Li‑2 is not prior art. The owner seeks denial of institution.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper’s IPR challenge to Monarch’s IPv4/IPv6 inter‑domain routing patent is countered with a sur‑reply asserting that the cited prior art is either not publicly available or teaches different solutions, and that new arguments are procedurally improper.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises new, unraised arguments about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported and procedurally sound.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 29 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board invented a new obviousness theory not raised in Visa’s petitions, violating procedural rules.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OSSI Corporation filed a motion to correct procedural defects in its petition against Hippocratic AI's patent, seeking Board approval to submit a compliant filing.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL, backed by AGCO, has filed a PGR petition challenging all 15 claims of 3U Vision’s automated sorting‑machine patent, asserting indefiniteness and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 92 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Hyperice’s percussive massage patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to invalidate ToutVirtual’s virtual‑systems‑management patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of priority for half the claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 11,041,149 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and anticipates all claims under prior art US‑275.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Oura’s wearable smart‑ring patent, arguing obviousness over Sun and Kruse references and indefiniteness of claim 6. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under the FINTIV provision.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑22 of SoftView’s ’729 patent, alleging they are obvious over prior‑art handheld browsers (Zaurus, Pad++) and SVG standards, with claim 21 also relying on SVF. The petition invokes estoppel and issue preclusion based on earlier PTAB findings for related patents.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑35 of SoftView’s ’154 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, SVG and SVF prior art and arguing that the claims are patentably indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
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.