US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 291 · 8,722 total
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
ProAmpac has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,072,148, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning’s 8,627,684 patent covering a glass‑roll apparatus for flat‑panel displays. The petition relies on eight prior‑art references to argue obviousness of claims 1‑14.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and patent‑owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to separate the agreement from the IPR record and limit third‑party access.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a discretionary denial, arguing national‑security stakes and material examiner errors render the ’779 patent invalid under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’779 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Torii, Mise, Yu, Gilmer and Chen. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Amneal has filed a petition to cancel Nivagen's 11,813,291 patent covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s U.S. Patent 12,019,461 covering remote fluid‑handling control. The challenger argues that a combination of four prior‑art references makes all 17 claims obvious under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
NKT Photonics Inc. et al. v.Omni Continuum LLC
NKT Photonics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni Continuum's 7,433,116 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Shaw and Islam references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on 25 claims covering Raman‑based infrared light sources.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate key claims of Intellectual Ventures' virtual network patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals has filed a petition to invalidate all 20 claims of Nivagen’s U.S. Patent 11,925,661 covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, citing multiple prior‑art references and lack of written‑description support.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to invalidate Intellectual Ventures I LLC's patent covering virtual community networks and IP routing. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the petitioner could not persuasively demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Caronni-I and RFC-1383.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Doughty, Abe, and others.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The email seeks rehearing of the denial and notes parallel P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution for iCashe's NFC payment patent, arguing that USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due process, and that the Board ignored Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 9,483,722.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s patent. iCashe argues the Director acted properly under established memos and statutes, and that Samsung’s due‑process claims fail. The patent owner requests denial of the review.
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.