US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 160 of 291 · 8,722 total
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenge against Cellspin Soft's patent (11234121), asserting obviousness over multiple prior art references. Petitioners, including LifeScan and Senseonics, successfully argued that the claims were rendered obvious by combinations of existing wireless technology standards and academic publications.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s adjustable child‑carrier patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing indefiniteness of a key claim term.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against The Ergo Baby Carrier's patent on adjustable baby carriers. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of persuasion, specifically regarding the public accessibility of key prior art and demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied BabyBjörn AB's request to institute a second Inter Partes Review against The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc., citing insufficient grounds for parallel proceedings.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’313 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art patents Diener and Shaffer. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution and seeks a finding of unpatentability.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum for patent 11770313, citing the advanced scheduling and substantial investment in a parallel district court lawsuit.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against Essity Hygiene and Health AB's absorbent article patent (9308138). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art, including Nakazawa.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 patent succeeded. All 24 claims were found obvious over prior‑art references Hazelzet, Buchmann and, for certain claims, Kim, rendering the patent unpatentable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its remote desktop patent (U.S. 8,934,887). The petition argues the Board misread Figure 2, applied a conjunctive construction contrary to the specification, and ignored the Acting Director’s guidance. Amazon seeks reversal of the institution denial to allow the IPR to proceed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon’s second request for Director Review of the PTAB’s claim‑construction on its streaming‑technology patent was challenged by B.S.D. Crown. The patent owner contends the Board correctly applied a conjunctive reading and that Amazon waived its right to reply, leaving no basis for review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging B.S.D. Crown’s remote‑desktop patent. The petitioner contends the Board abused discretion by rejecting a preliminary reply on claim construction and misreading the patent’s scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 8,489,837 patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all five asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The Board rejected the patent owner’s constructions and upheld Samsung’s obviousness arguments.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding its claim‑construction analysis and finding no error in the denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its memory‑controller patent, arguing a faulty claim construction and insufficient particularity in Samsung’s grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.
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.