US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 141 of 286 · 8,574 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Golden Eye's 9,271,243 patent covering WLAN transmit‑power adjustment. The challenger relies on prior‑art references Hills, Wang and Calhoun to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Tempus AI, Inc.
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.GOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art standards and publications.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’815 patent covering social‑network event coordination, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over existing social‑network and event‑planning technologies.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed an IPR petition to invalidate 16 claims of a fantasy‑sports patent owned by WinView IP Holdings, asserting that the invention is already disclosed in earlier patents and publications.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 9,762,692 patent covering CDN popularity‑based routing and content partitioning, asserting obviousness over Seed and Swildens references.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc. et al.
NJOY has filed an IPR petition challenging JUUL’s U.S. Pat. 12,156,533 covering nicotine‑salt e‑cigarette formulations. The petition argues anticipation under §102 and obviousness under §103 based on the Sebastian and Lechuga‑Ballesteros references.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of the ’183 Patent covering undelivered‑message thresholds. The petition asserts that a combination of four prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of HBCU Messaging’s ’827 patent covering random‑number‑derived message transmission. The petitioner contends the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art messaging references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,991,601, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references covering wireless messaging. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,600, which covers methods for selecting message bearers on mobile devices. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining prior art from Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal, and Dorenbosch. No claim constructions or institution decision are present at this stage.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions to invalidate SitNet’s ’769 patent covering situational networks, arguing all 30 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites multiple earlier patents and publications and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motive’s driver‑monitoring patent (US 12,062,243), asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art CNN references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 62 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth‑beacon patent, asserting that each claim is anticipated or obvious over Eagle, Behrens, Olkkonen, Kallio and Jones. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and collateral estoppel to bolster its request for institution.
Google LLC v.Gamba Group Holdings LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition against Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s 9,772,193 patent covering Bluetooth and GPS‑based parking‑location methods. The petition asserts anticipation by Baese and Phillips and obviousness with Phillips and Soliman, seeking cancellation of claims 12, 13, and 15‑18. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,224,794, which claims a wireless‑network clearinghouse system. The petitioner contends that all 32 claims are obvious in view of prior‑art references such as Dawson, Geranio, Aaron, Daley, Scherzer and Chmaytelli. No secondary considerations are offered to overcome the obviousness argument.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate key claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning robot patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier Chinese and U.S. robotic cleaning disclosures. The petition targets claims 1‑8, 11‑14, and 19 and seeks an IPR institution.
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' patent for an autonomous pool‑cleaning robot, asserting that the invention is anticipated by a Chinese robot patent and obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all five claims.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
Wybotics Inc. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2007 Chinese filing and obvious over multiple U.S. robot‑cleaner references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 1‑3.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components, Inc. settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPR proceedings, including the one covering patent 11,307,369 B2. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request in IPR2024-00341, instructing Samsung and Headwater Research to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days. No new evidence may be introduced and briefing is limited to 15 pages.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 13 claims of Little Giant Ladder Systems' ‘506 patent covering articulated ladder hinges. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness, and argues that the examiner erred in granting 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.