US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 151 of 286 · 8,574 total
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Genzyme’s ’313 patent covering AAV detection methods. The petition asserts obviousness over four pre‑grant publications describing LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC techniques for viral proteins.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. 9,082,239 vehicle‑infotainment patent, asserting that all 35 claims are obvious over existing vehicle‑technology disclosures.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Reed Semiconductor Corp.
Monolithic Power Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Reed Semiconductor’s ’955 patent as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Genzyme’s ‘377 patent on AAV detection methods, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition details three grounds of obviousness and asserts no secondary considerations outweigh the evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 8, 9, 13, and 17‑21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,367, which cover a zero‑profile expandable intervertebral spacer. The petition relies on the Palmatier patent as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Genzyme’s ’326 patent on AAV analytical ultracentrifugation, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious in view of earlier publications by Le Bec and de la Maza, supported by Cole and Sommer.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker's ’590 patent covering smart‑meter appliances. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references for all 62 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Target Corporation has filed an IPR against HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’s U.S. Patent 10,321,320 covering a wireless network buffered messaging system. The petition asserts that all 18 claims are obvious over the 3GPP MMS standard and related prior art. The request seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Radian’s ’656 flash‑memory controller patent, asserting obviousness over Reiter, SCSI standards and other prior art. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 47 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’104 patent covering hands‑free audio messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed a petition for IPR of IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 8,582,789 covering a hearing‑enhancement system, seeking cancellation of all 76 challenged claims as obvious over Anderson and other prior‑art patents.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s multi‑speaker audio patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing Bluetooth speaker technologies. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 47835 patent covering railway block‑and‑unblock code systems. The petition asserts obviousness over the FRA‑Report and several secret‑code references.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 49,115 patent. The petition asserts that claims 20‑36 are obvious over the FRA‑Report combined with secret‑code references. No discretionary denial is alleged.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of MeshDynamics' ’762 VoIP mesh‑network patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition includes claim constructions and requests the Board to institute review.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners seek IPR on Champion’s dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over DuroMax, DeVries, Nakafushi, Olmr and Fujisawa. They also dispute the patent owner’s claim construction of the selector switch.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 16 and 19 of a spinal fusion implant patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, asserting obviousness over earlier McLuen and Michelson disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and highlights alleged concealment of prior art by the patent owner.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’887 patent, asserting that the claimed stepped‑profile substrate and edge‑mounted TOSA modules are anticipated or obvious over prior patents by Kuhara and Ho.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of the ’755 spinal implant patent, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Schäfer, Yeh, Berry, and Suddaby. The petition contends the patent owner concealed key references during prosecution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC security patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering secure profile provisioning and IMSI encryption.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑8 of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2008 publications describing SIPOS emitters, oxide layers, and antireflective coatings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’463 patent covering situational networks, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of location‑based social networking technologies.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’290 patent, asserting that all fourteen claims are obvious over six prior‑art references previously used in IPR2024‑00530.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Headwater's MMS‑related patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of 3GPP standards and multiple prior‑art patents. The petition lists 14 distinct grounds, each tying specific claim limitations to prior references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Zophonos’s ’906 audio‑control patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim is taught by combinations of DiCenso641, Smith, Holland, Warren, and Goldstein873.
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.