US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 152 of 188 · 5,620 total
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV Media’s request for rehearing of the final written decision in IPR2024-00046, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction or consideration of prior art. The petition’s arguments on claim 7 were deemed untimely and unsupported.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Petitioners challenged LANCIUM LLC's patent on renewable power integration in flexible datacenters, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Pelio and Chapel. The core dispute centers on whether combining known concepts for dynamic power delivery renders the patented technology predictable.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. challenged DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '554 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ogdon and Allen, potentially combined with SMIL 2.0. This challenge targets fundamental methods of video segmentation and quality switching.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance seeks to invalidate Nike’s 2014 footwear patent covering a knitted upper with a thermally bonded skin layer, arguing the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Becker, Dojan, Wildeman and Farys, and requesting the Board to institute the IPR.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB due to failure to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board rejected key claim constructions and found that prior art references did not adequately disclose the claimed integral knit tongue feature.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
The PTAB denied TROVE BRANDS' request to institute IPR against CamelBak Products regarding drinkware cap mechanisms. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over combinations of prior art references like Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate IPR2024-01274 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent owned by U.S. Well Services.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
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.