US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 157 of 188 · 5,620 total
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation successfully challenged Guntert & Zimmerman's patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found that the Petitioner persuasively demonstrated Office error by failing to adequately consider relevant prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found sufficient evidence for unpatentability under both §102 and §103 over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron successfully established the unpatentability of five claims (15, 16, 17, 19, and 20) over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala. The Board found that various embodiments in the prior art taught all limitations of the challenged claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory's patent 11,468,957. The Board’s original findings remain in effect.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that held claims 1‑6 of its 3D‑NAND memory patent unpatentable. The petition argues the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and misapplied the non‑obviousness analysis to prior art references Hongtao and Seo.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review challenges the PTAB’s rejection of its obviousness arguments against Yangtze Memory’s NAND flash verification patent. The Board found Micron’s evidence insufficient and its arguments conclusory, leading to a denial of the review request.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
Trove Brands has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,905,252 held by Camelbak Products, LLC, concerning drink container cap assemblies. The petition asserts multiple grounds of unpatentability, primarily relying on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Trove Brands utilizes various prior art references, including Samartgis, Leoncavallo, Miller, Gorskey, and Johnson.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Trove Brands against CamelBak's patent 8905252, finding that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability over Samartgis and Leoncavallo.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims related to 3D-NAND memory operation, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its challenges regarding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics' IPR challenge against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments of anticipation and obviousness, particularly regarding claim scope limitations like 'article of footwear.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's arguments that claims 1-6 of patent 11468957 were unpatentable. The Board found the anticipation argument failed because Suzuki did not disclose a distinct 'pre-verify stage,' and obviousness arguments failed due to insufficient establishment of required elements over prior art combinations.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under statutory confidentiality rules.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,362,480 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and lack of a preliminary response as reasons for dismissal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
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.