US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 163 of 286 · 8,574 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 20‑claim LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all claims.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations. The petition relies on prior‑art references that allegedly anticipate every claim element.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s U.S. Patent 9,943,515 covering netupitant‑based anti‑emetic regimens, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations and lack secondary considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Hermes IP’s ’060 patent covering location‑based services for camera phones, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Beckman Coulter’s 2023 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs by Goodman and Oostman.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity petitions to invalidate 39 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent, arguing the claimed netupitant/palonosetron regimen is obvious over prior art and lacks any unexpected synergy.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,471,950. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Tsujino, Shui, and Iwasaki—across three separate grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Maxell’s ’645 video‑processing patent. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kim and Fujimura references.
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’572 patent covering semiconductor interconnect fabrication. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 9‑13 of Dynamic Mesh Networks' U.S. Patent 7,885,243, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art mesh networking references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Maxell’s ’198 patent covering digital image playlist creation, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds, each pairing specific claim groups with combinations of earlier patents.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Radian's ’614 SSD storage patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. §311.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 9,146,925, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art jukebox systems and audio‑processing patents. The petition also argues against a § 314(a) or § 325(d) denial, citing favorable Fintiv factors.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Longitude Flash’s 2018 SONOS memory patent, seeking cancellation of 15 claims on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on Lee ’255, Lee ’961, Fujiwara, and Hwang as prior art.
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.