US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 152 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Zophonos’ ’736 audio‑control patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of MessageLoud’s ’964 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition argues that prior‑art systems already disclosed in‑vehicle message queuing, audio playback and user controls.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’775 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Boelter, Gruber, and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 25 claims of MessageLoud's 9,591,117 patent covering hands‑free message notification, citing Boelter, Gruber and Polak as prior art.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’725 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.
Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate UBC’s 10,751,029 ultrasound‑image‑analysis patent, asserting anticipation by Krishnan and obviousness over Chen, Aase and Wu. All 30 claims are challenged under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Telcom Ventures' 9,832,708 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Byrne, and White references.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 5‑11 of ART Research’s ’442 patent covering video‑annotation interfaces, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of ART Research’s ’840 patent, which covers video annotation and indexing. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Datar, Zhou, Gupta, Smith, Friedlander, and Mouilleseaux.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based proximity detection and mobile payments, citing obviousness over Barnett, Waters, Wang and Sakamoto references.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of VB Assets’ ’025 patent covering voice‑driven song dedication, arguing the claims are obvious over existing speech‑interface and music‑dedication technologies.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of ART Research’s ’001 patent, which covers video‑annotation features used in social‑network contexts. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
Jesco Lighting Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AGS Lighting Management’s linear LED lighting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds, each pairing Edwards, Sadwick, Jeswani, and May to show the claimed features were well‑known.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank has filed a petition for inter partes review of US 12,159,310, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over earlier mobile check‑deposit disclosures (Garcia, Luo, Meier, Cohen, Goyal, Yoon). The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 9,860,595, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds combining Tecot, Lee, Logan, Poslinski, and McElhatten. The case is pending institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
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.