US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 144 of 188 · 5,620 total
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The patent owner seeks Director Review in IPR2024-01406; the Board limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Kangvape’s disposable vaporizer patent, arguing that a parallel ITC proceeding should preclude institution under the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,070,133 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal and POSCO are engaged in Director Review proceedings for two IPRs. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. A deadline of five business days has been set for filing.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01393 following a settlement agreement. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue that early termination saves costs and resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB sent an email confirming receipt of the patent owner's Director Review request and imposed a five‑page limit on the response, barred new evidence, and required filing within five business days. No additional briefing is allowed at this stage.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,179,359 patent covering differentiated network‑access policies for mobile devices, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of the 372 Patent, arguing they are obvious over Shao‑028 and Shao‑423. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's U.S. Patent 11,652,834, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Zhang patent and the McNab book. The petition lists 22 claims and argues that passive DNS enumeration techniques were well‑known before the patent's filing date.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intelligent Clearing Network’s 9,098,855 coupon‑processing patent, asserting that all 57 claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply, seeking institution of the review.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s U.S. Patent 11,014,090 covering gyratory crusher shafts, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that institution should be granted despite parallel litigation.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sandvik’s 9,827,568 patent covering a gyratory crusher shaft sleeve, arguing that all ten claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition stresses that the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology seeks to invalidate 35 claims of a digital‑coupon patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier coupon‑processing publications. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Patent 10,846,729, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims as obvious over prior‑art coupon systems. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a vaporizing smoking article patent, citing the existence and advanced stage of a parallel ITC investigation.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review of an institution decision in a vaping patent case, vacating the original ruling and sending it back to the Board. The parties must now address discretionary denial under Fintiv factors considering a parallel ITC proceeding.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
CMS Cepcor successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Sandvik's gyratory crusher patent (11,014,090 B2), setting the stage for a complex obviousness trial involving three prior art references.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, arguing that multiple prior art combinations render the claims unpatentable under 102 and 103. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, despite factors favoring discretionary denial, leading to the institution of the review on all 25 challenged claims.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
The Director denied review of institution decisions in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPRs and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel challenges.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
The PTAB denied Cisco Systems' IPR petition against Scale Video Coding LLC, finding the asserted claims were not reasonably likely to be unpatentable over prior art references. The decision focused on technical limitations regarding bandwidth identification in video routers.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of patent 9098855 against Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on anticipation and obviousness grounds, primarily citing prior art from Deaton. This decision allows Quotient to proceed with challenging key claims related to coupon redemption networks.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Quotient Technology against Intelligent Clearing Network regarding patent 10846729. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Aggarwal and Deaton.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,014,090 B2 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the specific structural limitations claimed by the patent.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
A challenger has filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808, owned by The Ridge Wallet LLC. The petitioner asserts that the patent's compact wallet structure and auxiliary clip mechanism are obvious combinations of existing prior art references. This challenge targets all 24 claims based on Section 103 (obviousness).
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
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.