US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 161 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully challenged Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the PTAB finding all 22 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 29 claims of Netlist’s ’623 memory‑module patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in a decision favoring Samsung’s SK Hynix petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Ellodi's 11,260,061 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets. The petition relies on Perrett, Dohil2009, and Venkatesh as prior art to argue obviousness under §103.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 42 claims of Ellodi's ’407 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother, Venkatesh and FDA guidance.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 10,632,069 covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Woodbury Wireless’s ’895 patent covering MIMO Wi‑Fi systems, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Lastinger publication and Sadowsky patent.
Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Ellodi's 11,246,828 patent covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of the ’887 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile‑device virtualization and remote desktop technologies.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet's attempt to invalidate Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent on network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Fortinet failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically Delco and Adams. This denial maintains the validity of key virtualization and firewall technology for Croga.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully challenged a pharmaceutical patent (11260061) in an IPR, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board's decision hinged on extensive claim construction, particularly defining 'adsorbed onto a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.'
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP regarding patent 9,486,407. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Dohil) renders Claim 35 obvious.
Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (11,246,828) over orally disintegrating tablet claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art showing obviousness.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (10632069). The review challenges claims 1-17 based on obviousness over prior art, including Dohil and FDA guidance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in this IPR, challenging all 20 claims of Netlist's patent (11880319) based on obviousness and anticipation. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over various combinations of prior art, including Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim. This decision sets a strong precedent for challenging memory module initialization claims using industry standards and technical literature.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a Nokia wireless‑technology patent and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor voltage and clock management, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 9,571,833 patent on HEVC motion‑vector prediction, arguing obviousness over Rusert/Zheng and Nakamura/WD4 and disputing the examiner’s allowance.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Infineon's 9,070,755 transistor patent, seeking cancellation of all 14 claims on the basis of anticipation and obviousness over Fujishima and related prior art. The petition argues that discretionary denial is improper and requests the Board find the claims unpatentable.
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Redstone Logics LLC's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The dispute centered on multi-core processor design and clock ratio controllers.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB denied Innoscience America's petition to institute IPR against Infineon Technologies regarding patent 9070755. The Board found that factors favoring discretionary denial, such as overlap with a parallel ITC investigation, outweighed arguments for institution.
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.