US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 147 of 188 · 5,620 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics and Redstone Logics settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,253,925 before a trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petition asserts that several claims related to multicast routing and switch fabric are obvious over prior art references Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng, and Rao under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This proceeding addresses the core validity of networking technology patents.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,554,126 held by Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., asserting that the LED claims are unpatentable. The petition relies heavily on grounds of anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references. This challenge targets numerous structural features within light emitting diode technology.
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging all 22 claims of Oura Health's '147 Patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's patent for a wearable computing device, arguing that the invention is unpatentable over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references such as Schröder and Yuen renders the claimed finger ring obvious, covering both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition filed by Juniper Networks against Portsmouth Network Corporation, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board specifically accepted arguments that challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and others based on obviousness over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition challenging claims in a semiconductor device patent, citing failure to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Board found that several grounds were voluminous and excessive, particularly those involving complex prior art combinations.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that ten of the fifteen challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng). The Board found sufficient motivation to combine Blease and Weyman for distributed architecture features, while also finding that combining Blease/Weyman with Hu was plausible for bandwidth efficiency improvements.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford files an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Halliburton’s Director Review Request, asserting the Board’s findings on claims 14, 29‑31, and 33 are well‑founded and that the patent owner’s arguments misinterpret the claim language and prior art.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Halliburton seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found several gravel‑packing screen claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misread claim language, offered no motivation for its combination, and abused its discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Weatherford's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00990 concerning Halliburton's oilfield patent 11,333,007 B2.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Iarnach Technologies seeks denial of an IPR filed by Nokia and AT&T over U.S. Patent 9,806,892 covering direct power‑state transitions in passive optical networks. The owner argues the cited references do not disclose such transitions and invokes Fintiv discretionary denial factors due to parallel district‑court cases.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. has initiated an IPR challenge against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s patent covering gravel packing systems for oil and gas applications. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art developed by ExxonMobil/Mobil research groups dating back to the 1990s. This action targets multiple claims related to differential pressure shunt tubes and screen geometry.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the '882 Patent owned by Resonant Systems, Inc., asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge focuses on combining various prior art references—including Alexander and Cosper—to demonstrate that the patented vibration control technology is predictable.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's patent (11222448) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, related to real-time measurement guides in CAD software, are predictable combinations of existing technologies like Grinspun and Graphicxtras.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,733,773 owned by CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious based on combinations of existing CAD software and prior art publications. This challenge focuses on whether combining known techniques with EZBRUSH software yields predictable improvements in garment patterning.
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.