US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 153 of 188 · 5,620 total
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 21 claims of RapidPulse’s ’253 aspiration thrombectomy patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art. Penumbra’s petition succeeded, leading to a sweeping invalidation.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and aligns with public‑policy goals.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of a PTAB decision, contending that BOE’s undisclosed state‑linked controller violates RPI requirements. The petition cites recent Director policy that makes such omissions fatal. The request seeks vacatur of the decision and termination of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that Beijing Electronics Holdings is not a real party in interest and that the patent owner delayed raising RPI issues. The Board’s prior rulings supporting BOE’s RPI identification are reaffirmed, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to end the case under statutory settlement provisions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s Director Review Request to vacate the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01048. Apple contends the Board correctly treated the method steps as order‑agnostic and that the prior art analysis remains sound.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences settled three USPTO IPRs (01130, 01132, 01133) and withdrew their pending Director Review requests, ending further proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia Technologies Oy faces an Inter Partes Review challenge regarding its video compression patents, specifically concerning sub-pixel interpolation methods. The petitioner argues that combining TML6 and Fandrianto renders the claimed method obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). This proceeding centers on whether the combination of prior art references meets the 103 obviousness standard.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against Nokia's patent (8036273), allowing Amazon to proceed with its obviousness arguments. The Board found that the combination of prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto plausibly teaches the claimed sub-pixel interpolation methods.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Nokia's patent (7280599) regarding video compression and sub-pixel interpolation. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto, leading to the institution of all 51 challenged claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nokia's video compression patents based on obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for unpatentability. This decision sets a significant precedent in challenging complex technical claims using combined software/hardware disclosures.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR petition against S.M.R Innovations, finding no reasonable likelihood that the 'apparatus for rerouting data' patent would be invalidated based on prior art references like Chihara and BluetoothSpec.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding several claims, focusing on how prior art combines to teach all limitations of the asserted claims in data routing and multimedia transmission technology.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
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.