US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 145 of 188 · 5,620 total
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB denial of institution for its IPR against Sfara’s vehicle‑identification patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by demanding a means‑plus‑function construction that the claims lack. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied BOE Technology Group’s request for rehearing of its denied institution of an IPR on claims 7‑13 and 15‑20 of U.S. Patent 9,557,606. The Board held that the petitioner failed to define “wiring line” and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9359044) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as passive static stability and specific airfoil designs, are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 related to LCD manufacturing methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). BOE argues that combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Sfara, Inc.'s patent on vehicle identification technology. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references Fong and Abramson. Petitioner contends that combining sensor signature detection with comparison methods was known in the field.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
The PTAB denied an Inter Partes Review petition against MHL Custom's patent (9586659) filed by Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence. The denial was based on the petition being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as Petitioner had already lost related litigation using the same prior art.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Patent 9,359,044 B2, finding the petition time-barred. The denial followed the rejection of a motion to join because the petitioner had already challenged the patent's validity in district court.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Fujikawa, Kang, and Ikeguchi.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all ten challenged claims related to vascular occlusion catheters are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on various combinations of prior art references, primarily under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon's attempt to invalidate Nokia's video compression patent (8204134) failed at the PTAB. The Board denied institution, finding that Amazon could not prove obviousness over prior art like Yagasaki.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer’s corn‑seed patent, arguing that the PTAB’s denial of institution improperly rewards secrecy of parent lines. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision and prevent a precedent that could undermine disclosure in plant‑breeding patents.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and affiliates filed a joint notice that a redacted version of the PTAB’s final written decision in Samsung Display’s OLED display patent case has been prepared. The redactions protect confidential material while allowing the decision to be filed.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks submits a corrected certification of word count and updated certificate of service for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ patent 8,190,610.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, including the one covering U.S. Patent 8,854,077, after reaching a settlement agreement and filing a dismissal in district court.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
The PTAB denied Databricks' request for Director Review of the earlier decision that refused to institute its IPR against R2 Solutions' data‑processing patent. The Director recused herself, and the Deputy Under Secretary upheld the denial.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
PTAB notified Fluidmaster and Danco that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-00635. The petitioner may submit a limited 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks, Inc. challenges R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8,190,610) in a Petition proceeding, arguing that the claimed enhancements to MapReduce are obvious. The petitioner contends that combining existing distributed processing techniques from Pike and Chowdhuri renders the claims predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
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.