US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 164 of 188 · 5,620 total
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB has issued an Institution Decision for IPR2025-00007, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The case involves obviousness challenges (103) against Trina Solar's solar cell patent using combinations of prior art from Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition against claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541, finding that the combination of prior art references did not render the copper foil obvious. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success when combining properties from materially different sources.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied by the PTAB, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis's copper foil patent.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB upheld the patent against IPR challenges related to NGS target enrichment. The Board clarified that 'enrichment' requires an increased proportion of the sequence relative to others, not just a raw increase in fragment count. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof on unpatentability.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over combinations of prior art, specifically involving Chang and Jin for isolation regions in solar cells.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
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.