US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 147 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie Innovations' 8,610,397 battery‑charger patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several Japanese and U.S. references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ’701 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art trading system disclosures.
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s 2018 stylus patent, asserting that its tilt‑detection claims are obvious over prior‑art Yoshida combined with either Ikeda or Iguchi. The petition lists two 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds covering 21 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 10,224,999, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 8,350,763 covering multiband antennas. The challenger alleges the patent is obvious over several earlier references and seeks cancellation of all claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑driving patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art machine‑learning patents and that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’548 patent covering steerable antenna technology for radiation safety. The petition relies on prior art such as Schlub, Oshiyama, Prasad, Seol and Yin to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, asserting obviousness over Kim and over a Ho‑Lee combination. The petition includes a claim‑construction argument for the term “carrier.”
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple files an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of HBCU Messaging’s ’450 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references covering mobile messaging.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Samsung Display’s ’503 patent covering inclined pads and bumps for LCD displays, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' data‑security‑for‑file‑system patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art file‑system and cryptographic references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering a hemostasis valve. The petitioner alleges obviousness over prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Hermann and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple petitions to invalidate 30 claims of a messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering mobile messaging, presence, and unified UI. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑arrangement patent. The petition relies on five grounds of obviousness over prior‑art references such as Cok, Suh, Hong, Credelle‑379 and Elliott‑724. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Zugara’s AR video‑chat patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Rosenthal and Vesely publications. The petition lists 29 claims and relies on 35 U.S.C. §103.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging ShopSee’s ’316 patent covering interactive video layers, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Ohliger and related references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s 8,554,671 patent covering cashless mobile transactions. The challenger argues that claims 1‑3 and 22 are obvious over the Look, Stallings, and Tumminaro prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s OLED display patent (US 11,574,990). The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
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.