US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 146 of 291 · 8,722 total
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,385,415 and jointly moved to withdraw the IPR, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory Technologies’ patent 10,950,623. The order affirms that the Director will not intervene.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. initiated a Petition challenging Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (9941830) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combining prior art references like Wakuda and Ramsay renders the claimed linear vibration modules predictable to a POSITA.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, asserting that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on Linear Resonant Actuators (LRA) and vibration generation technology, utilizing multiple prior art combinations to demonstrate unpatentability.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. initiated an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s 3D NAND patent (10950623). The PTAB has instituted the proceedings based on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Park and Shibata.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8093767) regarding vibration modules and haptics. The Petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 103.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent on Linear Resonant Vibration Modules (LRVMs) at the PTAB. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute a parallel Inter Partes Review against Resonant Systems, Inc., finding that the existing IPR proceeding was sufficient despite arguments regarding priority date disputes.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'driving' and 'control components,' setting the stage for a trial focused on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, leading to a decision that found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board adopted key claim constructions and accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in this IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Park et al., despite the Patent Owner's challenges to key claim terms like 'trenches.'
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board issued key claim constructions, defining 'driving component' as means-plus-function while confirming 'control component' is structurally defined.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Resonant Systems' patent claims related to Linear Resonant Vibration Modules (LRVM). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision hinged on the combination of various prior art references to demonstrate obviousness in vibration module technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board found all five challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Petitioner successfully argued that combining existing technologies was obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Payne and over Sakai/Kawagoe. Texas Instruments’ motion to join the earlier IPR2023-01244 was also granted.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director Review order grants Texas Instruments a remand, vacating the PTAB’s final decision. The Board is instructed to allow narrow discovery on privity and to consider previously excluded claim‑construction orders.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs challenging Greenthread’s semiconductor patents. The Board found the petitions lacked merit and ordered denial.
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.