US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 146 of 286 · 8,574 total
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' clustered‑computing licensing patent, arguing obviousness over Sparks and Bram references.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 32 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’2901 wireless headset patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and presents detailed claim‑by‑claim arguments.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corp. filed an IPR petition challenging all 82 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’789 hearing‑enhancement patent. The petition asserts lack of written‑description support and cites multiple prior‑art references to render the claims anticipated or obvious under §§102 and 103.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions an IPR against Wacom's 9,977,519 active‑pen patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Four grounds are presented covering §§102 and 103. The petition seeks institution of the review.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’282 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑13 of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN patents Dilley, Russell, and Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings and proposed claim constructions.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope’s U.S. Patent 8,635,697 covering network‑based malware detection and OS fingerprinting. The petition asserts obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining three prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 2009 patent on hot deployment in grid computing, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging all 35 claims of Netskope’s ’282 patent covering dynamic firewall rule updates, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Coss patent and the Ke publication.
Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.
Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of a video‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over prior art references Mao, Liu, Sherer and Wu‑771.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac files an IPR petition challenging MR Technologies' 11,138,997 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media. The petition asserts obviousness over Takenoiri (and Li for certain claims) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑2, 4‑7, and 9.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PSLC’s ’857 microgrid load‑control patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering frequency‑based load shedding.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Amazon Web Services has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of a 2001 music‑distribution patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of earlier cable‑distribution patents (Yurt and Logan). The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,117,639 covering network access control. The petition relies on Richmond, Wood, and Teraslinna as anticipatory and obviousness prior art.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition against Netskope’s ’336 patent covering network‑access redirection. The challenger contends that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Subbiah and, for dependent claims, over Hinton and Crandell. Fortinet seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
RJ Brands (Chefman) has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition targets claims 1‑4 and 7‑22 and seeks to have them declared unpatentable.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 43 of U.S. Patent 9,005,293, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over prior‑art spinal‑implant references. The petition highlights alleged nondisclosure of key references during prosecution and deficiencies in the patent’s written description.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,448,367 owned by Applied Optoelectronics. The petition asserts that all nine claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical transceiver adapters.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Massively Broadband’s UWB repeater patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Malikie Innovations’ dock patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Tsutsui Japanese application. The petition includes a technical expert declaration and asserts no discretionary denial applies.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
IPM petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cisco’s ’708 video‑conferencing patent, arguing all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art sliders and layout controls.
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.