US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 146 of 188 · 5,620 total
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the PGR petition filed by Inari Agriculture against Pioneer Hi-Bred, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success. The Board specifically rejected obviousness claims because they relied on phenotypic comparisons while ignoring critical genotypic differences in maize breeding technology.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks, Inc. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8190610) regarding MapReduce data grouping. The PTAB denied institution because Petitioner relied on speculative hindsight rather than demonstrating a clear motivation from prior art references like Pike and Chowdhuri.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB against Danco, Inc., leading to the institution of trial on all 14 claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the patent's features were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using various prior art references. This decision significantly advances Fluidmaster’s challenge in related district court litigation.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully secured institution at the PTAB against MOSAID Technologies regarding integrated circuit patents related to power management. The Board accepted Petitioner's showing of reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable over prior art references, including Takahashi and Mizuno.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB panel majority found that the cited prior art references teach or suggest all limitations of claims 1-14, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically construed key terms like 'overflow tube' and 'Flow Limitations' to support Petitioner’s reading, though ultimately found the overflow tube limitation was limiting in scope.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB found 16 claims unpatentable over prior art references, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board upheld its construction of 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Delta Power Equipment, Lowe’s and Home Depot seek rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their cutting‑machine blade‑guard patent, arguing the Board misread the Gass prior art and that claims 1,2,5,9 are obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent (8972161), challenging the claims based on obviousness over prior art references. Tesla argues that the claimed energy-optimum routing and automatic cruise control features are conventional modifications of existing technology, making them unpatentable.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Petitioners (Delta Power Equipment, Lowe's, Home Depot) successfully requested institution of their Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 7,475,622. The challenge asserts that the claimed safety features for table saws are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gass and AAPA.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Petitioner's attempt to invalidate a cutting machine safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that key biasing elements in the prior art did not match the specific limitations of the claims.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art combination with Neiss supported the modifications to the patented system, particularly regarding route handling and iterative energy calculation. Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 were found invalid.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,307,369. They jointly request the settlement be kept confidential and move to terminate the IPR.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. successfully secured institution of IPR against Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s optical connector patent (11307369), challenging 22 claims based on obviousness and anticipation.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. challenges the validity of Senko Advanced Components' '369 patent, arguing that various claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references (Scherer, Lee, Gniadek). The petition asserts both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically targeting connector housing arrangements in optical fiber technology.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over a handheld scanner patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings before trial, treating the settlement as confidential.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless jointly request that their 5G NR settlement be kept confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply and Everlight Electronics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,742, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential per regulatory provisions.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) in IPR2024-00987.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00982 before the Board issued an institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s Bluetooth streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung and Redstone Logics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,253,925. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR and requested the settlement be kept confidential.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also designated as business‑confidential information.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
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.