US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 151 of 291 · 8,722 total
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully challenged NL Giken's patent (US 10880592) in the PTAB, leading to institution on claims 1-3 and 5. The petitioner argued that prior art references Walker and Chang rendered the claims obvious in the context of digital broadcasting systems.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00227, finding the review inefficient and unnecessary after prior adjudication and a stipulation not to reassert the claims. Google’s petition for rehearing was rejected.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s ’714 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under §314(a).
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,488,237, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked critical teachings and requests the Board to institute review.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DKR Consulting’s ’995 e‑commerce widget patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of SiOnyx’s ’682 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR cancellation of SiOnyx’s 44‑claim image‑sensor patent, arguing that prior‑art references Alie, Baggenstoss, Haddad204 and Park make the claims obvious and that institution should not be denied under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' request to institute an IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent 11,721,714 B2. The Board relied on the Fintiv factors, concluding that the existing parallel ITC and District Court litigation favored denying institution.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify's IPR challenge against DKR Consulting was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited a district court ruling that found all challenged claims invalid under Section 101, prioritizing administrative efficiency.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify Inc.'s request to institute IPR against DKR Consulting LLC's '995 patent. The denial was based on administrative efficiency, as a District Court had already ruled all challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR against DKR Consulting's patent, citing administrative efficiency because a district court had already found all the challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR petition against DKR Consulting, citing a District Court ruling that invalidated all challenged claims under Section 101, prioritizing administrative efficiency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against SiOnyx, LLC was denied by the PTAB due to significant overlap with parallel district court litigation. The Board exercised its discretion under Fintiv guidance, prioritizing efficiency over the merits of the invalidity arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against SiOnyx, LLC due to significant overlap with a parallel district court case. The Board found that the proximity of the trial date and overlapping issues outweighed the Petitioner’s strong merits arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficient to teach the claimed solar cell structure. This decision validates the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness in photovoltaic technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent were obvious over prior art references. The Board credited the petitioner's evidence, concluding that an ordinary artisan would have combined Chang and Jin to achieve the claimed isolation features with reasonable success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of eleven claims of Spinelogik's spinal fusion patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Blain, Bray, and Steffee references.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully navigated the PTAB institution phase against Spinelogik regarding spinal fusion implants. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over Moskowitz and Steffee for several key claims.
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.