US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 145 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 10,512,385 dishwasher patent, asserting that claims 13‑21 are obvious over Bosch, Ochoa, and Schessl references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel all 26 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing that prior art (Bucuk, Nordman, Kallio, Perttila) anticipates or makes the claims obvious.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.--
Viant, Mediaocean and AppLovin have filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 11,949,962, asserting that the combination of two prior publications makes the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Okta, Inc., et al. v.--
Okta has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all sixteen claims of Thales’s ’103 patent covering security policies for eID wallets on mobile devices. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Makhotin, Coulomb, Jones and others.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,020,961, asserting that all 13 claims are obvious over the Ye reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition to institute an IPR against OptimNet’s U.S. Patent 9,313,101, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over the Mo and Peng references. The petition seeks cancellation of the challenged claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate TopWire's 9,859,202 PoP patent, asserting that all claim limitations are anticipated or obvious over earlier packaging references such as Sun and Chen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and requests cancellation of the challenged claims.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate twelve claims of Carma’s ridesharing patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Olmi, Paul, and Jarvinen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. §103.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules. The petition relies on anticipation by the Mizue patent and obviousness via Li and Liu utility models. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Qomplx’s 12,143,424 patent covering distributed stream‑processing graphs. The petition relies on Barsness and two later disclosures (Chakradhar and Siripurapu) to argue obviousness under §103 for nine claims.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of AccuSearch’s ’959 patent covering annotated search‑result displays, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 115 claims of SoftView’s ’889 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and are indistinct from previously cancelled claims in related patents.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.AI’s real‑time accent‑correction patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim element is taught by combinations of Feinauer, Prabhavalkar, Fan and others.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep‑disordered breathing, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep apnea. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art neurostimulator references (Durand/Hoegh and Headley/Tran). The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Shoals Technologies' solar connector patent, asserting obviousness over Machida combined with Solon or Kim and Sakatani. The petition adopts claim constructions from a related ITC case and seeks institution of the review.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition challenging Inspire Medical's U.S. Pat. 10,898,709, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over earlier neurostimulation disclosures such as Durand, Hoegh, Headley and Tran. The petition seeks institution of review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics files an IPR petition challenging Massively Broadband’s ’700 Patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Daley, Aaron and Scherzer. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota seeks to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s U.S. Patent 12,337,716 covering cloud‑based vehicle settings by alleging obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition requests the Board to institute an IPR and cancel all 13 claims.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over CDN‑related prior art (Dilley, Russell) combined with Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑construction arguments for key terms.
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of U.S. Patent 12,131,357, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art web‑media platforms (Fosnacht) combined with native‑app techniques (Kirkpatrick) and advertising methods (Sharma). The petition meets all procedural requirements and seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition to invalidate Weple IP Holdings' 12‑billion‑dollar streaming‑media patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over earlier web‑video and native‑app patents. The petition outlines three grounds of obviousness and discusses discretionary denial issues.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Weple IP's 12,112,357 patent covering mobile streaming media. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Sharma references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 10,165,324. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that those references were never considered during prosecution.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.
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.