US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 137 of 291 · 8,722 total
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of RazDog’s cloud‑based content‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over Darnell, Kim, and Dasgupta references. The petition stresses favorable discretionary factors for institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate 17 claims of Stratasys' 3D‑printer patent, arguing that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious. The petition also challenges a discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of the ’441 patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a wide range of prior‑art streaming patents. The petition argues that the Board should not deny the request and requests institution of the review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed a petition to invalidate Proxense’s U.S. Patent 8,219,129 covering high‑rate WPAN communications, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s 9,265,043 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation. The petition asserts obviousness over combinations of Gilb, IEEE 802.15.3, Ward, and Brawn, and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed a petition to invalidate claim 1 of Razdog’s cloud‑computing patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of an IPR trial.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent (10961602) regarding coated steel/aluminum alloys for automotive parts. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, instituting the challenge across 30 claims.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against a patent covering multimedia content delivery systems. The Board found that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing across multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, moving the case to the merits phase.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2025-00350 on June 13, 2025. A director‑review request filed by the patent owner on July 13 was deemed untimely and will not be considered.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent and granted joinder of Czech challenger Webgroup and NKL Associates, linking the case to a prior IPR over the same claims.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking federal statutes. The Board had previously authorized the filing, and the parties seek limited disclosure only to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs parties of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under business‑confidential rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. §327 and related regulations.
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.