US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 143 of 188 · 5,620 total
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review to deny institution of Comcast’s IPR, arguing the petitioner’s repeated filing of parallel petitions violates USPTO guidance and burdens the PTAB. The request cites statutory discretionary‑denial authority to block the abusive filing pattern.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Entropic Communications requests Director review to block Comcast’s parallel IPR filings against its 11,785,275 patent, arguing the petitions violate statutory limits on abusive filing. The petition cites the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, which was prompted by Comcast’s own conduct.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast defends its three parallel IPR petitions against Entropic Communications, asserting they comply with PTAB guidance and are essential for addressing multiple invalidity grounds. The response urges the Director to reject the Patent Owner’s request for review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Court decision.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of Vervain’s ‘240 NAND‑flash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja patents and argues that pending district‑court suits do not bar institution.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The denial focused on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references, particularly regarding specific technical features like webserver functionality.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent (No. 11690512). The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, allowing the challenge to proceed despite neutral merits.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,986,781 patent covering knitted footwear uppers. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors do not support denial of institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers' IPR challenge against Nike regarding knit textile footwear was denied by the PTAB. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, despite adopting the patent owner's claim construction for 'article of footwear.'
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Skechers against Nike, finding the claims lacked reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'article of footwear,' which was critical to the denial.
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Nuvei Technologies against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, specifically regarding negative limitations in tokenization claims.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) and BitSight have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on BitSight’s ’331 patent. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue termination promotes efficiency and reduces costs.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Headwater’s request for Director Review of the Board’s institution of IPR2024‑01407. Samsung contends the institution was proper, based on prior‑art disclosures and a correct Fintiv analysis, and that Headwater’s alleged prejudice is unfounded.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR covering claims 1‑30 of its high‑strength aluminum alloy‑coated steel patent. The owner contends the Board abused its discretion by misapplying Fintiv factors, particularly Factor One and Factor Four, in violation of §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
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.