US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 160 of 188 · 5,620 total
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Verizon Wireless's patent (9198042), finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references could be combined to teach secure execution environments for mobile data services.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Samsung against Maxell regarding video management systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Horn and Baumgartner. This moves the case into substantive examination on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s patent claims related to camera control systems. The Board declined discretionary denial despite parallel district court litigation because the petitioner agreed not to assert the same grounds there.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
The Board found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Limont, Wright, and Xu, disclosed the claimed invention. This final decision provides a strong defense against infringement claims in wireless communications technology.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found that claims 1-6 and 9-13 were unpatentable over Kaplan and Bryant under 35 U.S.C. § 103, while rejecting the challenge to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 due to insufficient evidence of prior art accessibility. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'user profile,' aligning with district court findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims unpatentable by obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining various prior art references—including Chinn, Takahashi, and Kim—would render the claimed features obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
Pharaoh Energy Services has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Flex‑Chem’s 9,944,843 well‑stimulation patent. The petition relies on Frenier and Reyes as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 13 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint PTAB request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b) and related regulations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of IPR2024-00790 was denied after the Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal, which stripped the PTAB of jurisdiction. The Board cited In re Graves in reaching its decision.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claim 4 of its 3‑D NAND patent remains unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness law, ignoring KSR precedent and the known‑substitute teaching of Kim and Tessariol.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on claim 4 of Yangtze Memory’s 3D memory patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to demonstrate a motivation or benefit for the alleged modification.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has requested a Director Review of the IPR decision against Yangtze Memory Technologies. The Patent Owner has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress successfully defended its NAC patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, with the PTAB upholding all challenged claims. The Board found the antedating evidence properly presented and rejected the petitioners’ untimely arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the PTAB's final written decision on the ’484 patent. They allege the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and breaching the burden of conception and diligence.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving patent 7,523,484. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
Valeo SE et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
Valeo SE et al. filed a Petition challenging claims of Foras Technologies Limited's patent (7502958) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petitioners argue that the claimed fault-tolerant processor architecture is rendered obvious by combining Bigbee and Nguyen prior art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging the validity of Yangtze Memory Technologies' '031 Patent, arguing that key claims are obvious over prior art references Kim and Tessariol. The petition focuses on 3D NAND memory structures, specifically multi-stack staircase designs and etch profiles. Micron asserts that the combination of teachings from these references renders the claimed features predictable and non-novel.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of InfoExpress's U.S. Patent No. 7,523,484 in the PTAB. The petitioners argue that the network access methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation against InfoExpress in District Court.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's 7523484 Patent in an IPR, asserting that the network security claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references (Krantz and Herrmann) disclose nearly identical architecture to the patented invention, making the claims unpatentable.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims in a well remediation patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient novelty or obviousness against prior art references. The Board relied heavily on the proximity of parallel district court litigation when applying Fintiv factors for discretionary denial.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenged DexCom's CGM patents in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art combining Yarger and Love. The Board granted institution after claim construction, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS and FORTINET successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction regarding device reconfiguration while accepting the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Krantz and Herrmann.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3 unpatentable over Kim due to obviousness (103), while claims 4 and 5 were found patentable. The Board construed the key term 'surrounding' as meaning 'all around' or 'encircling.'
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.