US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 156 of 291 · 8,722 total
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle & Manufacturing successfully petitioned to challenge the patentability of Neapco Components' propeller shaft joint assembly claims before the PTAB. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual was publicly accessible in 2016, establishing it as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). This finding allows American Axle & Manufacturing to challenge all 18 claims of Neapco Components' patent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of a PGR covering 78 claims of its wellhead patent. The owner argues the proceeding is inefficient, cites misapplied prior‑art analysis, and alleges the Board ignored § 325(d) discretionary denial grounds.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute review of its wellhead patent. The petitioner contends there was no abuse of discretion and that the Board correctly applied statutory standards, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review Request.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Intelligent Wellhead Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision on its wellhead patent, keeping the institution in place.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment has requested a Director Review of a PGR challenge to its wellhead patent, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 78 claims of Downing's hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the claims are abstract, lack written description, contain new matter, and are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies, challenging 16 claims related to merged cascode transistors. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar seeks an IPR against SportsCastr's streaming patent, arguing that claims 1‑15 are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition emphasizes examiner oversight and argues against discretionary denial.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing obviousness and anticipation over three prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and requesting the Board to institute the review.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging eleven claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems disclosed by Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar AG petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SportsCastr's U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering real‑time sports video and data streaming, arguing the claims are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑9 and argues against discretionary denial.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed a petition to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing that claims 1‑9 are obvious over prior art from Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron submits an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution decision for its memory‑chip etching patent, arguing the Board properly evaluated the Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga references. The Patent Owner's objections are portrayed as mischaracterizations of the prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent, arguing the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and failed to deny institution despite weak merits.
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 the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
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.