US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 154 of 188 · 5,620 total
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00952, leaving the earlier denial of institution unchanged. The proceeding therefore remains denied.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of patent 9184157 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. The challenge asserts that the claimed ESD protection circuits are obvious over prior art references Reiner and Takahara. The petition was successfully instituted, setting up a detailed examination of the combination of existing circuit knowledge.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics challenged 18 of Sfara, Inc.'s crash detection claims in an IPR petition, arguing they are rendered obvious by prior art references Green and Wright. The petitioner asserts that combining existing sensor technologies with methods for logging driving information allows a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to achieve the claimed features.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to provide a proper claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Additionally, the Board found that key 'component' terms functioned as means-plus-function limitations lacking cognizable structure in the patent specification.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok challenged a patent owner’s motion to terminate several IPRs over alleged failures to disclose a foreign party‑in‑interest and person‑eligibility issues. The PTAB denied the motion and initiated a sua sponte Director review, staying the IPRs pending further analysis.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-00746, keeping the original institution ruling intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the outcome.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its vehicle‑power‑management patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied the § 325(d) discretionary denial test, re‑hashing arguments already considered during prosecution.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenges the validity of Cellspin Soft's patent 9900766, alleging obviousness over various combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on combining Kahn with Bluetooth and Singh129 with Singh906 to invalidate claims related to mobile multimedia upload systems. This initial filing sets up a complex technical battleground in the PTAB.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenges iQar Inc.'s patent (10850616) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Koebler650. The petitioner argues that combining existing technologies to improve vehicle power management was predictable for a POSITA.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok and its affiliates successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Cellspin Soft regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over multiple prior art references, including Singh129/Singh906 and Kahn/Bluetooth.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s challenge to Cellspin Soft's patent was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The Board focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) over prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications. This decision sets up trial proceedings to determine if the combination of existing technologies renders the patent claims invalid.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director denied TikTok's IPR petitions against Cellspin Soft, citing precedent that bars foreign governments from participating in AIA proceedings. The decision vacated prior institution orders and terminated the review.
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.