US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 158 of 286 · 8,574 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touchscreen display patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of MOSAID’s ’381 flash memory patent, asserting obviousness over the Grundy and Kilbuck references. The petition includes a detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis and an expert declaration.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's U.S. Patent 10,013,088 covering an integrated OLED touchscreen. The petition asserts that all 13 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Chen, Jang, Sano, and Sakamoto. BOE seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Samsung Display’s 10,541,279 B2 OLED touch‑screen patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and lists eight ground combinations covering the entire claim set.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group petitions to invalidate Samsung Display’s 11,500,496 OLED touchscreen patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious combinations of prior‑art OLED and touch‑sensor technologies.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra LLC
Citrix and Cloud Software Group have filed a petition to invalidate K.Mizra’s network‑security patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over established prior‑art combinations.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment's 11,840,970 dual‑fuel generator patent. The petition alleges obviousness over numerous prior‑art references and challenges the claim language as means‑plus‑function under §112(f).
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 10,536,714 covering motion‑vector prediction methods. The petition asserts obviousness over earlier video‑coding publications (Rusert, Karczewicz, Lin) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30. The case is pending institution.
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of U.S. Patent 8,593,888 covering flash‑memory voltage regulation, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior patents such as Tomita, Im, Nam, and Nakayama.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑3 under §§ 102 and 103.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. 7,547,584 patent covering dummy openings for charge‑damage reduction in dual‑damascene processing. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Shoals Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,015,375 covering photovoltaic lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over Machida and combinations with Solon and Kim, and asks the Board to adopt ITC claim constructions.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’916 patent covering cfDNA‑based microsatellite instability detection. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of Schmitt, Forshew, Porreca, and Sacko references.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corporation has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 7,629,634 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Hshieh and Uno prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.
Liberty Energy Services LLC et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent’s ’974 nasal neuromodulation patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over Townley, Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290, and the Angeles console.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of Hannibal IP’s 5G beam‑management patent (US 11,641,661). The petition relies on Guo, Intel’s 3GPP proposal, and the 5G‑Standard to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
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.