US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 147 of 291 · 8,722 total
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, leaving the prior final written decisions in place.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in Texas Instruments’ IPRs against Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, ordering new discovery on the privity issue.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments petitioned to challenge Greenthread’s semiconductor patent and sought joinder with a related IPR. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and granted both institution and joinder, merging the proceeding into IPR2023-01242.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing abuse of discretion in denying discovery and striking claim‑construction orders.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB Director Review email authorizes ADC Solutions Auto LLC to file a 15‑page response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00671. No new evidence may be submitted and the response must be filed within five business days.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron Intellectual Property's vacuum cleaner patent (US 10,117,550). The petition asserted grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged Greenthread's patent on CMOS fabrication methods using multiple prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the merits strong, leading to institution of the petition.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged the '11121222 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (§103), arguing that prior art references like Kawagoe, Wieczorek, and Wolf render the semiconductor device claims unpatentable. The PTAB found the merits strong and determined that institution was warranted for review.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable and non-novel in advanced CMOS fabrication.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC filed an IPR challenging The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as USB charging and lithium battery protection, are predictable combinations of existing prior art in automotive electronics.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that eight claims of the patent were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically regarding jump starting devices with USB charging capabilities. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine existing technologies for convenience and practical benefit.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution of its IPR against DSM’s colored‑suture patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on patentable weight, combination rewriting, obvious‑to‑try analysis, and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑success standards. The request argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious and unpatentable.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Court decision.
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's patent (RE49,114) in a PTAB Petition based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references 'Cho' and 'Nielsen' disclose the core structural elements of e-cigarette cartridges. This challenge targets numerous claims related to wicking systems and atomization chambers.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc. challenged the validity of patent 10280532 in a PTAB petition, alleging obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated material error by the Examiner and instituted the case for trial.
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied NJOY's request to challenge JUUL's electronic cigarette patent (RE49114), finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc.'s IPR challenge against DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for obviousness over various prior art combinations in the field of biomedical devices and polymer fibers.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that all 21 claims of its ’749 footwear‑knitting patent are unpatentable. The Owner contends the Board erred by disregarding the petitioner’s expert testimony and by incorrectly finding that the Nishida reference anticipates the claims.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
In IPR2024-00460, the PTAB affirmed that the Nishida reference anticipates lululemon's claims of a footwear knitting method, rejecting Nike's new precision argument. The petitioner's response underscores the Board’s proper reliance on intrinsic disclosure and consistent expert testimony.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
The USPTO denied Lululemon's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00460 concerning Nike's footwear patent 8,266,749. The order contains no substantive analysis of the patent claims.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
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.