US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 149 of 188 · 5,620 total
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims (1-3 and 8) were anticipated by multiple prior art references, including Chen. The Board found that the prior art disclosed all claim elements, leading to a final decision of unpatentability.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all claims of its cloud‑virtualization patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board improperly introduced new evidence—misinterpreting Veselov’s description of a file system—as teaching the claimed virtual‑disk location, violating procedural rules.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB issued an errata to correct a grammatical mistake in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685. The correction clarifies the Board’s language about Hufsmith’s teaching on detecting sensitive data.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging Jabaa, L.L.C.'s patent claims related to biometric customer authentication apparatus. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Mathiassen, Ryan, and Lim. The petitioner seeks to institute proceedings leading to the cancellation of all ten challenged claims.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging several of Orca Security Ltd.'s patents related to virtual machine and cloud asset protection. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Veselov, Price, Hufsmith, and Huseinović.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Askeladden L.L.C. against Jabaa, L.L.C., challenging claims 7-20 of patent 7480637 related to secure transaction authentication. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail based on prior art combinations.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board preliminarily agreed with Wiz's claim construction arguments regarding snapshot analysis and API usage based on prior art references.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate their post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,496. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement that resolved all pending PTAB post‑grant review matters for patent 11,732,496. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential business information.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility and co‑petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on their UWB train‑control patent. They argue the Board wrongly treated a cited patent number as previously presented art and erred in finding the prior art was substantially the same as that considered during prosecution.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories filed a Petition challenging Newtonoid Technologies' patent claims based on obviousness. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies, such as dynamic barcodes and environmental monitoring, renders the claims unpatentable over multiple prior art references. This challenge targets 18 specific claims related to stimuli-responsive labels.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility's IPR challenge against Metrom Rail's rail vehicle control patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the arguments presented were substantially similar to those previously raised during prosecution, leading to a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
The PTAB denied a request to reverse the denial of institution for IPR2024-00947, finding that Kane was not 'previously presented art' and that it was substantially similar to Knott.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories challenged Newtonoid Technologies' '818 patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references like Prusik and Vaillant. The PTAB issued an institution decision finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 20 challenged claims.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 covering fiber‑optic connectors. They jointly filed a motion to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s ’680 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent were obvious over Ogdon and Allen, while 8 claims remained patentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of the ’855 patent, arguing obviousness over Unger and Smith, indefiniteness of several claims, and lack of enablement and written description for claim 10.
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.