US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 139 of 286 · 8,574 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.
Vivint LLC v.Zinser, Duke
Vivint LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 21‑47 of U.S. Patent 7,583,191, asserting they are obvious over the Schranz prior‑art reference.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp’s U.S. Patent 11,495,875 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references teaching dual‑sided coil layouts, via connections, and parallel circuitry.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior‑art references that disclose low‑voltage operation and embedded display‑port use.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 10,998,017), asserting that claims 1‑2 are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art DRAM disclosures and that the input/output unit is a §112(f) means‑plus‑function term.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
SEG Solar, Inc. et al. v.--
SEG Solar and affiliated entities have filed an IPR petition challenging Jinko's 2023 solar‑cell patent, asserting that 18 claims are obvious over multiple Chinese patents and academic papers. The petition lays out detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings to prior art and seeks cancellation under § 318(b).
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 12,154,652), seeking to invalidate claims 1‑6 on anticipation and obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of a vehicle gear‑selection patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Pogona, LLC
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757, alleging that the pneumococcal vaccine claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Porro, Mekalanos, and Siber. The petition argues examiner error and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.TopWire, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Headwater's 9,232,403 patent covering a secure MMS-enabled mobile device, arguing obviousness over TS‑23.140, Ogawa, and other references.
QD Oxford UK Limited et al. v.Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.
QD Oxford UK has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, and 17‑19 of U.S. Patent 12,313,320 covering dilution refrigerators. The petition relies on six prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over a HIPAA‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google petitioned for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google filed a second IPR petition challenging all claims of Headwater Research's patent, but the USPTO denied institution based on a post‑filing PO stipulation. The petitioners request Director review, arguing the denial misapplies § 314(a) and threatens broader litigation.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s ridesharing patent (US 11,017,668) on the basis that its claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition lists two grounds covering all 20 claims and requests institution of the review.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' 11,880,207 patent covering autonomous pool cleaning robots. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of fifteen claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon has filed a petition to invalidate Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on grounds of obviousness and lack of written description for 4G LTE implementations.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 10,603,183 covering spinal intervertebral cage devices. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art references Moskowitz 440, Waugh, and Michelson 019 and argues a priority-chain error that renders the references prior art under §102(b).
Resmed Corp. v.Fractus, S.A.
Resmed has filed a petition to cancel all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, alleging lack of novelty, obviousness, and insufficient written description for 4G standards. The petition relies on prior‑art references Dou, Ciais‑Quadband, Nakano, and Baliarda‑543.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 50 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’053 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of CDN‑related prior art. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
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.