US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 156 of 188 · 5,620 total
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition for NJOY against JUUL Labs, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found insufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success in combining various prior art references across multiple claims.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,986,303 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia request Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 5G‑related patent, arguing the Board added an unsupported ‘pre‑equalization’ step in claim construction. They seek vacatur of the denial and to proceed with the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences filed a motion to dismiss an inter partes review of its aortic valve patent, arguing the case is pre‑institution and barred by a prior infringement lawsuit. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding without a decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references Demircin and Kimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Samsung also addresses discretionary denial provisions of the AIA.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. successfully instituted an IPR against Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC regarding a semiconductor verification patent (7603636). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over multiple combinations of prior art references under 103.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in PGR2024-00026, which challenges a construction‑equipment patent owned by Guntert & Zimmerman. The petitioner, GOMACO, had sought review but the request was rejected.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB for permission to file a reply brief in its post‑grant review against GOMACO, citing alleged mischaracterizations and new arguments by the petitioner. The request emphasizes good cause and a rapid turnaround.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s ‘749 slipform paver patent are unpatentable, finding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments over the CIII manual and Rio actuator convincing.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied GOMACO's request for a review of the institution decision in a post‑grant review of patent 11,772,723, leaving the institution in place.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Gomaco urges the PTAB Director to deny G&Z’s review request, arguing that the Board’s obviousness finding for the ’318 slipform paver patent is fully supported by the CIII and Rio prior art. The petitioner contends no claim construction is needed and that the Board’s reasoning is adequate.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of its ‘723 slipform paver patent. The petition alleges obviousness over the CIII manual, Rio and Files patents, and a lack of written description for a transducer placement. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation (Petitioner) challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 via Petition, arguing that claims 1-8 are obvious over prior art references CIII and Rio. The Petitioner contends a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these references to improve slipform paver efficiency.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. filed an IPR challenging Yangtze Memory Technologies Company's 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (10658378). The petition asserts that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references like Toyama and Mushiga.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
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.