US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 161 of 286 · 8,574 total
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate all 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, asserting that the Callender reference renders the claims obvious. The petition also argues that any discretionary denial would be unwarranted.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and a lack of written‑description support. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial, noting parallel filings by Google and Microsoft.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' ’722 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references covering real‑time data updates and routing networks.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 ’814 patent on the ground of obviousness over Blaser, Calder and Schmidt prior art. The petition argues that each claim element is taught by the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering containerized application sets, asserting that all 34 claims are obvious over prior‑art virtualization references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s ’910 clot‑removal patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 ‘969 Patent covering an intraoral device with mesh. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness of the claims based on earlier dental mouthpiece patents.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Palisade's ’051 memory‑card patent, asserting obviousness over Diggs, Lin, and Thorsten references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and outlines four grounds of unpatentability.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
NXP Semiconductors has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener references.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Helsinn’s antiemetic patent (US 8,623,826) on the ground that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the asserted synergy is not unexpected.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat petitions the PTAB to invalidate Competitive Access Systems’ 8,228,801 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over earlier bandwidth‑sharing technologies. The petition relies on the Challener and Kotzin disclosures, with Held providing motivation for routing‑table features.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ ’249 patent covering multimodal natural‑language responses, seeking cancellation of all 28 claims on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’597 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of Lee, Stacey, Zhou, and Choudhury. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.
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.