US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 143 of 286 · 8,574 total
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,336,052, asserting obviousness over two sets of prior‑art references covering social‑network event handling. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Terumo BCT, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of MR Technologies' 9,928,864 patent covering multilayer perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri and other prior art.
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
Shuttleslide, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Sea Swivel’s U.S. Pat. No. 12,258,111, alleging anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of written description based on numerous marine‑accessory references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences has filed a PGR petition challenging Beckman Coulter’s flow‑cytometer patent, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine Sonos claims covering multi‑zone audio control, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Geiwitz, Van Hulle, Aiso, and Allen.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 8,478,903 patent covering content‑delivery networks, asserting that the claims are obvious over Kenner and other prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of SnapAid’s ’452 patent covering real‑time image‑quality assessment. The challenger alleges obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate W&Wsens' 12,243,948 patent covering microstructured photodetectors, asserting obviousness over Kuboi, Vasylyev and Shinohara and lack of enablement.
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Nicholson Manufacturing has petitioned the PTAB to cancel all 18 claims of BID Group Technologies' AI‑enabled log debarking patent, asserting obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and indefiniteness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible abstract ideas.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
Election Systems & Software petitions to invalidate Hart InterCivic’s 12,125,319 patent, asserting that its claims are abstract, obvious over prior‑art voting‑machine technology, and lack written description for recursive features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate 29 claims of XiFi’s U.S. Pat. 12,250,564, alleging obviousness, patent‑ineligibility, lack of written description, and indefiniteness.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,195,773 covering soluble human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The case is pending before the PTAB.
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.