US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 161 of 188 · 5,620 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1–6 and 11–13 unpatentable over Tessariol, while finding them patentable over Park. The Board's decision hinged on claim construction, specifically defining 'dummy source structure' as one that does not function as a source to memory cells. This outcome significantly impacts the validity of the asserted claims in 3D Memory Devices (NAND).
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics filed an IPR challenging Natera's prenatal‑testing patent. The parties settled before the Board could institute the trial, and the Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Court decision.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Pharaoh Energy Services' petition to institute IPR proceedings against Flex-Chem for patent 9944843, citing a lack of compelling merits. The Board found that the cumulative weight of Fintiv factors and insufficient technical basis in the petitioner’s evidence led to the denial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,756,680 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that allowed InfoExpress’s network‑security patent to survive. They argue the Board improperly accepted arguments incorporated by reference, violating USPTO rules.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,649,909. They have filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing public‑policy support for settlement.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 11,762,504, and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board already considered all issues and that the petitioners forfeited new arguments. The Board’s prior finding that none of the references are prior art stands.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied the Director’s review of final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including Cisco’s challenge to InfoExpress’s patent 8,677,450 on network traffic management.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco Systems challenges InfoExpress's patent (8677450) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining Krantz and Herrmann prior art references provides a predictable solution for enhanced network security and access control policy enforcement.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET successfully petitioned to challenge InfoExpress's network security patents, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combining Krantz and Herrmann would render the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
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.