US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 140 of 286 · 8,574 total
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Pat. 9,147,297, asserting that its vehicle infotainment control claims are obvious over prior‑art systems such as Zancho, Sundaram, and Demeniuk.
Pfizer Inc. v.Pogona, LLC
Pfizer has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757 covering pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Alexander and Gu, plus extensive epidemiology literature.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,173,100 covering vehicle network security. The petition argues lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. Ford seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Genzyme’s ’880 AAV detection patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim is taught by combinations of those references and argues that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing seeks cancellation of DLX Enterprises' ‘496 patent covering rapid‑deployment hub shelters, alleging on‑sale and public‑use bars based on pre‑filing sales and a 2017 exhibition. The petition provides sales invoices, design drawings, and exhibition photos as prior art.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovation Limited et al.
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of K.Mizra's 2012 wireless networking patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Yoon, Andric, and Budampati references.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Vusura Technology LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑25 of Vusura’s ’303 patent, which covers multimedia content presentation during telephone calls. The challenger relies on the 2007 Roundtree publication to argue obviousness under §103.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
SAGEMCOM BROADBAND SAS v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Sagemcom Broadband petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Entropic Communications’ ’275 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Zhang and related prior art.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate Janssen’s golimumab patent (US 11,041,020) on the basis that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the company’s own clinical‑trial protocol and other prior art.
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate six claims of HFT Solutions’ ’286 patent, alleging that the FPGA‑PLL synchronization method is fully disclosed in Altera’s white paper, the Stratix Handbook, the Si5345 manual, and a 2012 Lockwood paper.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging InterDigital’s ’876 patent covering large‑block intra‑prediction in video codecs. The petition asserts obviousness over Xiong, VCEG‑AJ21, and H.264, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka's U.S. 9,578,092 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 for claims 1‑30.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’710 patent covering server‑based voice control of smart‑home devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’706 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider obviousness, while the patent owner maintains the invention’s novelty.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker's ’174 smart‑home patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider key prior art and that the claims recite routine home‑automation functions.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of the ’184 vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists thirteen grounds covering combinations of Joos with Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Qomplx’s multi-factor authentication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Kirti patent and the Coffin textbook. The petition seeks institution of IPR on claims 1‑21, 23‑28, and 30.
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.