US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 148 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed a petition for inter partes review of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 7,936,415 covering LED backlight modules. The petition asserts seven obviousness grounds based on Roberts and other prior art references, seeking cancellation of all 18 claims.
Apple Inc. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor power management, seeking cancellation of ten claims as obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Turtl’s ’290 patent covering modular document generation, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Meridian International’s ’946 patent covering a stackable storage box with a stop‑part mechanism. The petitioner alleges the invention is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Li and Baruch. The Board is asked to institute the trial and invalidate the patent.
Apotex Inc. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
Apotex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s 2017 pancreatic‑cancer treatment patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a body of prior‑art that teaches the same drug regimen.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’682 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Champion’s ’145 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art engine manuals and patents.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MOSAID’s ’028 patent covering configurable clock modes in non‑volatile memory, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
RJ Brands has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Zhang, Conrad, Philips and Moon.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin’s 2011 metal‑gate transistor patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
CyberSecure IPS petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Network Integrity Systems’ ’641 patent, seeking cancellation of 14 claims as anticipated or obvious over several fiber‑optic monitoring references. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and an expert declaration.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of SnapAid’s ’325 patent on obviousness grounds, citing a broad set of prior‑art references covering real‑time image‑quality assessment.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of the Regents of the University of California’s 2010 patent on parallel distributed programming, asserting anticipation by the 1998 Fukuda publication.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of K.Mizra’s network‑quarantine patent, arguing obviousness over prior art (Freund, Ball, Pujare) and urging the Board to institute trial after a prior institution denial was deemed erroneous.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
IPG Photonics Corporation v.Trumpf Laser- Und Systemtechnik GMBH
IPG Photonics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of TRUMPF’s ’054 laser‑fiber patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art fiber‑laser references. The petition outlines four grounds covering the full claim set.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of One‑E‑Way’s wireless audio patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a broken priority chain.
Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,857,064 covering a belt‑mounted tool pouch. The challenger alleges anticipation by Albrecht and obviousness over combinations of Albrecht, Gabriel, and Glock, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Intellectual Ventures’ LTE‑related patent, alleging obviousness over multiple pre‑grant references. The petition cites Papasakellariou, Classon, Liu, Muharemovic, and Onggosanusi as prior art.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi (Maxeye) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s ’866 active‑stylus patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over Kremin, Westhues, and Partow references.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of K.Mizra’s ’705 patent covering network quarantine and remediation. The petition relies on obviousness over Freund, Ball, Pujare, and Lewis, and cites a Federal Circuit remand of a prior Cisco IPR.
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.